In Corbin v. Lomax, a 1767 appeal, also from Virginia, the question arose 
whether the Statute against Fraudulent Conveyances (27 Elizabeth, c. 4) 
extended to Virginia. 107 Lord President Northington declared that the act 
did not so extend, but counsel Charles Yorke appears to have questioned the 
soundness of this holding on the ground that Virginia was not colonized until 
more than twenty years after passage of the statute, which was a useful regulation 
of property in an infant or an improved colony. 108 
The question of the extension of the laws of England to the possessions 
ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris, in 1763, created great furor in 
Canada that was only settled by passage of the Quebec Act (14 George 111, c. 
83). No appeals from Quebec raised this question before the Privy Council, 
but a 1771 cause from Grenada afforded the Privy Council an opportunity for 
a definitive pronouncement. Unfortunately, the Committee demonstrated little 
understanding of the question posed. In the case of Scott v. Brebner and Home 
an appeal was taken from a September 9, 1767, chancery order by which 
guardianship of the person and estate of Joanna Victoria Adelaide Herbert 
(born in British-occupied Martinique) was denied to her mother, a Roman 
Catholic and former French subject, and her stepfather Michael Scott, a 
British subject. 109 Since refusal was based upon the religion of the mother, 
the question was presented whether the acts of Parliament disabling Roman 
Catholics extended to the island of Grenada. 110 
By the fourth article of the Treaty of Paris, George 111 agreed "to grant the 
liberty of the Catholick religion to the inhabitants of Canada" and that he 
would "in consequence, give the most precise and most effectual orders, that 
"As voluntary assignees, they are admitted 
to bring a Suit. In the Suit in the Country 
where the Statutes don't extend they should 
be considered in the Same Situation—a doubt 
arose in Scotland. 
"The Statutes of Bankrupts have no positive 
force, no relation to them, prevent not a 
creditor suing the Bankrupt himself if he is 
in the Country, nor being attached, if by the 
Laws of the Country he can be attached. 
"What can the Court of Chancery here do? 
They could not stop the Creditors here running 
a race to Scotland, as was determined in 
Wilson's Case, to get the priority, but they 
shall not come in under the Commission—and 
if they do not come in, it is but just they 
have the priority, tho' they obtained it by running 
a race. John Pettit the Nephew was 
intitled in priority in Virginia, notwithstanding 
the Bankruptcy here" (WO 1/404/23). 
Cf. 1 Cooke, Bankrupt Laws (4th ed., 1799), 
303-4. Wilson's Case, mentioned by Mansfield, 
is apparently unreported in the English 
reports; from the discussion by Lord Loughborough 
in Sill v. Worswick (i H. Blac\- 
stone 665, 691-92) it appears to have been a 
cause before Lord Chancellor Hardwicke. For 
the same case before the Court of Session in 
Scotland, sub nom. Bradshawe and Ross v. 
Fairholme (1755), see 6 Marison, Decisions of 
the Court of Session (1802), 4556-59; 5 
Brown, Supplement to the Dictionary of the 
Decisions of the Court of Session (1826), 280— 
86, 821-24; Kames, Select Decisions of the 
Court of Session, 1752-68 (1830), 106-7. 
107 PC 2/111/686; PC 2/112/317, 356. For 
the "cases" of the parties see Add. MS, 
36,220/117-22. 
10s Add. MS, 36,220/119. 
109 Case of Appellant (Columbia Univ. Law 
Lib.); PC 2/114/363. 
110 For the provisions disabling Roman Catholics 
from acting as guardians see 3 James I, 
c. 6, s. 22; 25 Charles 11, c. 2, s. 5.