Griffin v. Thompson

Feb 28, 1844
Reporters:
, , ,
Before:
Daniel
Mr. Justice DANIEL

delivered the opinion of the court.

. This court is unable to perceive upon what principle of law’ either of the objects sought by the motion of the plaintiffs in the Circuit Court cóuíd have been accorded to them. It cannot be questioned that the defendant in that motion was entitled to the full benefit and operation of his execution, and these were to cause to be made for him of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements, of his debtor, the ■sum of $1740 02 of lawful money of the United.States. With his claim thus solemnly ascertained of record, we are aware of ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‍no authority, from any source, which can compel him to commute it, or to receive in satisfaction thereof any other thing which he shall not . voluntarily elect. But’ least of all should such an authority be recognised in a quarter more fruitful than any other of abuses in its exercise ; for instance, from the will either of the debtor, or the officer whose position would enable him in some degree to practise’ on both creditor and debtor To permit either the debtor or the officer to impose upon the creditor the receipt of depreciated paper in payment, would“be to permit not merely a repeal of the judgment, but a violation, a virtual abrogation indeed, of the contract on which it was founded; for none can fail to perceive the thousand fraudulent devices for profit or favour which the toleration of such a practice would naturally call into action $o defeat the rights of creditors. The courts of justice might thus be made to subserve only the purposes of dishonesty, and be transformed into engines of monstrous wrong. It has been argued in support of this’ motion, that banknotes constitute-good‘andlawfiil payment if received; that’ as the law recognises their circulation, debtors may lawfully tender them in payment, and creditors ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‍may lawfully receive them though not legally bound to do so. Frqm these postulates it is then attempted to draw the following conclusions: 1.- That the marshal is the plaintiff’s agent, who by the execution may receive the plaintiff’s debt. 2. That he who may lawfully receive ■ payment, may have a lawful tender of payment máde to him. 3. That if a tender or payment of’ bank-notes to the principal, not by him objected to, is a good tender or payment, the like tender or payment to the agent is equally good. This argument, to say the least of it,- is wholly untenable. ’Tis undoubtedly true that the creditor may receive either bank-notes or blank paper in satisfaction .of his debt, for the reason that his power over that debt is supreme, and he may release it without payment of any kind, if he think proper. But the fallacy of the argument here consists in totally misconceiving the situation and functions of-the marshal. He is properly the officer of the law rather than the agent of the‘parties, and is bound to fulfil the behests of the law; and this, too without ’ special instruction or admonition from any person. If, then, when commanded to levy a sum of money, he ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‍make a return that he has not done this, but has of his own mere will’ substituted for money depreciated bank-notes, his. return is an admission, on oath, that he has both disobeyed his’ orders and transeendéd’ his powers,. ■for legally he has no powers save those he. derives from the precept he is ordered to obey. Can it be doubted that upon application from those whose interests are involved in the performance of his duties by the. marshal, it is the right and the duty of the court in such a case to correct the irregularities of its officer, and to- compel him to perform his duty? There is inherent, in every court a power to supervise the conduct of its officers, and the e ;ecution of its judgments and process; Without this power, courts would be whoEy impotent and.useless. The returns of the marshal in this case upon’ the final process in his hands, showing the receipt by him of depreciated bank-paper in satisfaction of that process which ordered him to coEect moneys are held to be departures from the performance of his duty as plainly enjoined by the process itself, are deemed therefore iEegal and void, and ought upon the application of the parly injured thereby ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‍to have, been .set aside and annuEed by the court. In conformity with the principles herein sanctioned, vye therefore order it to be certified to the judges of the Circuit Court for the southern’ district’ of Mississippi,’ that satisfaction should not be ■ entered on the execution of fieri facias which was sued out in this case on the 4th of June, 1840, in favour of the said Robert Thompson v. the said Thomas Griffin and Hugh-Ervin, for the. sum of $1740 02 with interest and costs; and farther, that the execution of fi.fa., which was sued out against the said Thomas Griffin and Hugh Ervin on the sixth day of November, 1841, should not be quashed; and that the motion of the plaintiff in the Circuit Court Should be overruled

ORDER.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi, and oh the points and questions on which the judges of the said Circuit Court were opposed in opinion, and which were certified to this court for its opinion agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, It is the opinion of this court, that satisfaction should not ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‍be entered on the execution offieri facias, which was sued out in this case on the 4th of June, 1840, in favour of the said Robert Thompson against the said Thomas Griffin and Hugh Ervin for the sum of $1740 02, with interest and costs: and farther, that the execution of ji. fa., which was.sued out against the said Thomas Griffin and Hugh Ervin on the 6th day of November, 1841, should not be quashed: and that the motion of the plaintiff in the Circuit Court should be overruled. Whereupon it is now here ordered and ad- ’ judged that it be so certified to the said Circuit Court.