41 Mich. 576 | Mich. | 1879
Lead Opinion
The defendant, who is United States marshal for the eastern district of Michigan, seized the property in controversy by virtue of an execution issuing out of the Circuit Court of the United States for said district against the goods and chattels of John H. Carew. The plaintiff claiming the goods as her own property, sued out a writ of replevin before a justice of the peace of Wayne county, by virtue of which the goods were taken from the custody of the marshal and presumably, though the record does not show the fact, were delivered to the plaintiff.
If we look no further into the case, it appears to be manifestly within the case of Freeman v. Howe, 24 How., 450, and the justice did not err in sustaining the plea in abatement of the writ. In that case as in this the marshal had seized by virtue of a writ against one person property claimed by another, and the latter had caused it to be taken from his hands upon process issued out of the state court. In an opinion in which the authorities were carefully reviewed, Mr. Justice Nelson reached the conclusion that the property could not be taken from the custody of the marshal on a writ of replevin issuing from another jurisdiction; and in this the whole court concurred. The reason for the conclusion was that if the one officer were suffered to take the property from the custody of the other by replevin or
But while this case resembles Freeman v. Howe in its most prominent facts, there are some differences which cause embarrassment when the principle which ruled that case presents itself for application. It was objected there that if the party whose property was wrongfully seized on the process of the Federal court were not at liberty to proceed for its recovery in the State court, he would in many cases be wronged without remedy. If he were a citizen of the same State with the marshal, he could not bring suit against him in the Federal court, and if not a party to the suit in which the process issued on pretense of which his property was taken, he .could not in any manner intervene with his claim in that suit, to have his right determined and his property restored to him. The court answered this difficulty by saying that “those familiar with the- practice of the Federal courts have found no difficulty in applying a remedy, and one much more effectual than the replevin, and more consistent with the order and harmony of judicial proceedings,” as may be seen by reference to previous decisions of the same court which are particularly mentioned. “The principle is, that a bill filed on the equity side of the court to restrain or regulate judgments or suits at law in the same court, and thereby prevent injustice, or an inequitable advantage under mesne or final process, is not an original suit, but ancillary and dependent, supplementary merely to the original suit, out of which it had arisen, and is maintained without reference to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”
We have been unable to see, however, that this doctrine can be applied in this particular case. This suit,
The original jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States is restricted to cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds five hundred dollars. An original suit could not, therefore, be instituted by this plaintiff in the Federal court. It is not suggested that jurisdiction in ancillary, dependent or supplementary suits would not be in like manner limited, but if it were not, and the Federal court might measure its equitable jurisdiction in such cases by that of the State courts, the amount in controversy would still be inadequate, since it is under one hundred dollars. Comp. L., § 5059. Gamber v. Holben, 5 Mich., 331.
There is no statutory proceeding by means of which the rights of the plaintiff could have been tried and protected in the Federal court.. It might be very proper and suitable to provide by statute some method in which one whose property has been served on an execution against the property of another might have it released immediately on giving a forthcoming bond, or might haye his claim summarily tried. But no such method
In this case the plaintiff claimed a particular remedy to which I think she was clearly entitled. The Federal court could not give it, nor could it give any other which would accomplish its essential purpose. She had a right, therefore, to sue in the State court. It is immaterial that the property here in question was such as could not have had to the plaintiff any peculiar value; that which is involved in the next case which arises may be something which, by reason of family association or other peculiar circumstance, may have to the owner a value which no damages can measure. The principle cannot depend upon the facts of special cases.
I am therefore of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain this suit. The judgment of the court below should be vacated and the cause remanded with leave ' to defendant to' plead over. The plaintiff will recover the costs of this court, and the costs below will 'abide the result.
The plaintiff brought replevin before a
The plaintiff demurred to the plea, but the court overruled the demurrer and gave judgment that the writ of replevin should be quashed and for a return of the property and for the value. The cause being carried up, the circuit court entered judgment that the writ should be quashed, and that defendant should have return of the property and recover costs.
The single question to be determined is the sufficiency of the plea. The doctrine which excludes interference with the control of process issued from the courts of the United States is not involved at all. An action is brought in the State court and of which action that court has jurisdiction prima, facie.
The defendant undertakes to show that this appearance is deceptive, and that facts and circumstances exist which take the action out of the general rule and prevent the plaintiff from reclaiming through the domestic forum her own' property, however wrongfully he may have deprived her of it.
What we are called on to decide is, whether in taking this exceptional position the defendant states a sufcient case.
The requisites of fulness and certainty in these pleas are wrell ascertained (Heyman v. Covell, 36 Mich., 157; Dubois v. Hutchinson, 40 Mich., 262; opinion of Mr. Justice Curtis in Dred Scott’s Case and authorities cited, 19 How., 567. et seq.; Mandel v. Peet, 18 Ark., 236), and I think the plea before us is insufficient. All the facts alleged may be admitted without admitting that the goods' were seized as the property of the execution defendant and without admitting the existence of any ground for applying the execution to them.
The averment that the goods were seized under execution against John H. Carew has no operation beyond its strict sense and cannot be a ground of inference of anything else. The law will not tolerate an inference from it that the goods were so seized as his property or as being liable to seizure for his debt. Admitting that the matters in the plea may be considered evidence that the goods were so taken, they do not constitute an averment of the fact itself according to the strict rules applicable to such pleading. So long as no valid disclosure is made by plea or otherwise that the defendant asserts the control belonging to another jurisdiction, there can be no basis for discussing the ulterior questions. Until the subject is brought forward in accordance with the rules of law its discussion is premature. At present it is not under the cognizance of the court and we cannot assume it ever will be. .
Whether a stranger whose goods of however great and special value to him and little 'value to others, are
Without adverting to other topics I think the judgment should be reversed with costs and one entered below in favor of plaintiff on the demurrer, that défendant answer over, and the ease should be remanded for further proceedings according to the rules and practice of the court.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent from the opinion of my brother Graves respecting the certainty requisite in the plea. If the defense attempted to be made by the plea were valid, the plea sets up- all the facts which it would have been necessary for defendant to prove to make his prima facie case complete; and to require that the pleadings shall be more particular in their statements of fact than the evidence must be, is not only illogical, but for that reason is calculated to entrap parties in making up their issues, and is therefore mischievous.