Insofar as the burden of proof rests on the claimant, the Court could have denied the demand on that ground. The case Syllabus states "Evidence was given to prove that the demandant was not more than one year old when the British troops entered the City of New York, where he was born." A syllabus is an unofficial summary, and discussion on that point is hard to find in the opinions.
And he's correct. Inglis was 'entitled' to inherit as a citizen the same way ALL the members of the Founding generation were....with the 1795 Naturalization act.
Now this is just plain ridiculous; a monumental grasp at a straw.
NOWHERE in any opinion in this case is there one peep about the Naturalization Act. By contrast, the question of the time and situation of his birth is the thing being considered. The question as to Inglis's status hinged on his birth and the question of election due to the War. Naturalization does not come into play.
The key word your missing is 'resident'. It doesn't mean just being there....not even in England.
In Calvin's Case, Lord Coke indicated that an alien in amity coming into England, even if such entry was "but momentary and uncertain," owed a temporary allegiance to the Crown, and that such allegiance is "strong enough" that if he "hath issue here that issue is a natural born subject."
3. Concerning the local obedience it is observable, that as there on the King's part, so there is a (d) local ligeance of the sub this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. (e) and 3 and 4 Ail and Mar. Dy Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, a concluded (f) contraligeant' suæ debitum; for he owed to the King that is, so long as he was within the King's protection; which Loa but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a nat. he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject;" Link
Justice Gray cites to Calvin's case.
Story illustrates this further down with his points concerning the laws of the state-
You can't properly take Story's later discussion on the statute to interpret his earlier discussion of the common law. You're mixing the apple and the orange.
In any case, the statute recognizes the temporary allegiance owing the state akin to what Lord Coke penned. Story then adds the following clause in the statute:
"That all persons passing through, visiting, or making a temporary stay in the state being entitled to the protection of the laws during the time of such passage, visitation, or temporary stay owe during the same allegiance thereto."
Such "temporary stay" persons, would owe a temporary allegiance "strong enough" that, if they "hath issue" during that uncertain period, such would be a natural born citizen.
I fail to see where the ordinance discussed by Story helps you out. He's discussing whether that ordinance in effect acted to naturalize Inglis's parent. That would be the effect of the "abiding" clause.
Naturalization most certainly does come into play. You can't become a 'natural-born citizen of something that doesn't yet exist, which is exactly WHY the Justice used the term 'entitled' and did NOT say 'natural born'.
---
Justice Gray cites to Calvin's case.
We weren't talking about Calvin's case.
----
You're mixing the apple and the orange.
No, your avoiding the point.
There were 2 things under discussion. First was Inglis entitled to claim citizenship due to being in the States, and 2) If so, did he have the right to inherent.
Story said No to the first question. He believed him to be a British citizen, (Page 28 U. S. 170) but he did acknowledge that without evidence to the contrary, he couldn't justify refusing him the ability to inherit a commercial property.
----
such "temporary stay" persons, would owe a temporary allegiance "strong enough" that, if they "hath issue" during that uncertain period, such would be a natural born citizen.
Story DOES NOT use the term 'natural born citizen'...merely the word 'citizen', nor does he say anything about 'having issue'. Don't put Cokes words into Story's mouth just because you think they agree. Story made it plain he dissented with the court's reasoning for allowing Inglis to claim citizenship.
And again, you might want to keep reading right past where you quoted
Their "temporary stay" is manifestly used in contradiction to "abiding," and shows that the latter means permanent intentional residence. So Mr. Chief Justice Spencer, in Jackson v. White, 20 Johns. 313, 326, considered it. He says "Residence in this state prior to that event [the declaration of independence] imported nothing as regards the election or determination of such residents to adhere to the old or adopt the new government. The temporary stay mentioned in the resolution of the convention passed only twelve days after the declaration of independence by Congress and within five days after the adoption of the declaration by the convention of this state, clearly imports that such persons who were resident here without any intention of permanent residence were not to be regarded as members of the state;"