39 Kan. 28 | Kan. | 1888
A petition was filed in this court on the 14th day of February, 1888, on behalf of George W. Morris, for a writ of habeas corpus. It sets forth the following facts: On the 2d of September, 1887, an execution was issued out of the district court of Osage county, in the, case of Downer v. Morris, against this petitioner, and was returned the next day wholly unsatisfied. Thereafter Downer instituted proceedings in aid of execution before Hon. Alexander Blake, probate judge of said county, and after a hearing in the case he made an order upon the 22d of October, 1887, which was served upon the petitioner on the day following. Said order directed Morris to deliver certain property to S. H. Fuller, sheriff of Osage county, who had been duly appointed receiver in the action, and to pay him the sum of $1,131 in money. Morris turned over to the sheriff all the personal property mentioned in the order, but failed to pay him $1,131,
The first inquiry we can make is, whether the probate judge was clothed with authority in this case. Ordinarily the probate judge can exercise jurisdiction in proceedings in aid of execution. (In re Johnson, 12 Kas. 102; The State v. Gurnee, 14 id. 92.) One of the questions which arises between an individual applying for a writ of habeas corpus and anyone denying its validity, is the authority of the court to commit.
It is to be presumed that all the steps taken in aid of execution were regular, and that the receiver was duly appointed. The probate judge had jurisdiction not only to make the order to compel the defendant in that action to turn over property and pay money to the receiver, but also to exercise his authorized powers until all of the debt should have been paid. The object and end of the proceeding was to obtain satisfaction of a judgment against Morris. The judge did not lose his jurisdiction of the case by making the order turning over the property of Morris, and directing the payment of $1,131 to the receiver, but still possessed plenary powers to compel him to obey the orders made for the purpose of satisfying the execution issued against him. (The People v. Mead, 29 How. Pr. 360; Webber v. Hobbie, 13 id. 382.)
The making of the order of December 28th without additional notice upon Morris was an irregularity — a flagrant error — and one that certainly cannot be approved; yet it is such an error that it cannot properly be inquired into in this matter. The judge had the power to make it; he exercised such power, and of its exercise we have no control or revision in this proceeding. (Davison’s Case, 13 Abb. Pr. 129.) It is claimed that Morris established by a preponderance of the evidence that it was a physical impossibility for him to pay the money; the probate judge determined otherwise, and we cannot inquire into his judgment here; it is conclusive.
The second ground, that there is res judicata, owing to the
We recommend that the prisoner be remanded.
By the Court: It is so ordered.