▁the ▁demand ant ▁replied ▁that ▁she ▁and ▁her ▁husband ▁were ▁inhabitants ▁of ▁Georgia ▁on ▁the ▁ 1 9 th ▁of ▁April ▁ 1 7 7 5 , ▁then ▁under ▁the ▁domin ion ▁of ▁Great ▁Britain ; ▁that ▁her ▁husband ▁continued ▁a ▁subject ▁of ▁Great ▁Britain ▁and ▁never ▁ow ed ▁alleg iance ▁to ▁Georgia , ▁nor ▁was ▁ever ▁conv icted ▁by ▁any ▁law ful ▁authority ▁of ▁any ▁cr imes ▁against ▁the ▁state ." ▁ ▁Dis put e ▁The ▁court ▁noted , ▁" For ▁the ▁pla int iff ▁in ▁error , ▁it ▁was ▁admitted ▁in ▁answer ▁to ▁an ▁ob jection ▁that ▁the ▁value ▁of ▁the ▁matter ▁in ▁dispute ▁did ▁not ▁appear ▁upon ▁the ▁record , ▁but ▁it ▁was ▁ur ged ▁that ▁from ▁the ▁nature ▁of ▁the ▁subject , ▁the ▁demand ▁of ▁the ▁pla int iff ▁could ▁not ▁as certain ▁it , ▁nor ▁from ▁the ▁nature ▁of ▁the ▁suit ▁( like ▁a ▁case ▁of ▁e ject ment , ▁where ▁dam ages ▁are ▁only ▁given ▁for ▁the ▁ou ster ) ▁could ▁it ▁be ▁fixed ▁by ▁the ▁finding ▁of ▁a ▁j ury , ▁on ▁the ▁judgment ▁of ▁the ▁court . ▁ 3 ▁Bl . Com . ▁ 3 5 - 3 6 . ▁As ▁therefore ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁act ▁of ▁Congress ▁nor ▁any ▁rule ▁of ▁the ▁court ▁pres cri bing ▁a ▁mode ▁to ▁as certain ▁in ▁such ▁cases ▁the ▁value ▁in ▁dispute , ▁that ▁the ▁party ▁may ▁have ▁the ▁benefit ▁of ▁a ▁writ ▁of ▁error , ▁it ▁was ▁proposed ▁to ▁continue ▁the ▁cause ▁to ▁afford ▁an ▁opportunity ▁to