Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1877-01-23
a.,,nnrtant Decision.

i
heretofore mentioned in the GsZat'e, OF the
SUPREME Court OF the State Iii the case CT
Fairfax vs.. the City Council Of Alexandria. 1t
was rendered by Judge Moucure
IF the District Court had 10 jurisdiction to
render the decrnc of coDtiscatio1 relied o. as Q
defence BIZ the defendant 10 this case thcn II Is
admitted by the counsel On both sides, and Is
clearly shown by authority, that the SAID decree
is void. aud must be 50 regarded, even IN
collateral proceeding such as this lS. 1t Is
also admitted by the counsel CD botn sides, aou
is clearly shown by authority, that as the pro-
ccelipc in this case is IN Ten1., to give lne
court jurisdiction OF the case, the res must
have been brought, by seizure, within the
power and control Of the court. Was 1t SO
brought2 :, -, g..
Nv the seizure Of & thing" said the SUI
nrcme Court. in Pelham W. Rose, Wallace
10G ''is meant the taking OF = thing Into pcs
session. the manner Of which, and whether &C.
tual or constructive, depending upon the nature
Of the thing seized, as applied to SUBJECTS ca
pabIe of manual delivery the term means cap
ton, the physical taking into custody. 10
the case at bar" further said the court, "A
visible thing, capable Of physical possession, IS
| the subject Of the libel 1t Is the pron'ssory
| note OF Pelham which constitutes the res,
| against which the proceeding Is instituted auu
not credit or debt, which tho note Is sup
| posedlby the defendants counsel 10 represent,
| Whether by any proceeding under the act OF
July, 1862, the indebtedness OF a maker or
negotiable promissory note, before its maturity
conld he reached, without the possession Of the
mite itself is no; question presented Tor our
consideration. 1t is sufficient that the object
Of the present libel is to reach the note iiseIl.
This anncars at every stage Of the proceedings,
Ec "fo effect its seizure, as required By the
act. It was therefore necessary Tor the marshal
10 take the note into his actual custody anu
| control" See also PeInam vs.. Way TO-
| Id. l9G.
That credit was liable to "seizuro' within
the meaning OF the act OF July II, $50 clearly
appears, not only from the express language
Of the act itself, but also from various ad)udi'
cations upon it by the Supreme Court or the
United States. First, as to the express language
of the act. The filth section enacted that tc
ersure the speedy termination OF the present
rebellion, it shall be the duty OF tho President
ot the United States to cause the seizure OF al
the estate and property, money, stocks, Greats
and effects Of the persons herein after named,
&C., and the 9th section makes 1t the duty Of
the President TO seize and use, as aforesaid
all the estate, property, moneys, stocks and
credits OF persons within any State or Terri
tory" &c. Secondly, as to the decisions Of thG
Supreme Court upon the subject; they arc
Miller Va. United States, ! Wall, 2S6; Brow
rs. Kennedy, l5Id. 59l. But as credit Is In
capable of being actually seized, 1t must be con
structirely seized, il seized at all. How may
it be constructlveiy seized
p IT mr.
mode, as il might have done, aud It II hat
done So, no doubt seizure in that mode would
have hcsu sufficient, and perhaps the only
seizure that would have been sufficient. Bu
the act Of Congress, as We have seen, makes II
the duty Of the President Of the Uoltcu State!
TO seize, CT CAUSE the seizure OF all the estate
prOpclty, moneys, locks, credits, 40, as aorc
said. Thus, rs it SEEMS making 1t Ills eSpec!a
duty to prescribe rules 10 regard to SEIZURE
where doubt or difficulty might arse Oh tht
subject. Accordingly it Is stated IN il Wall
pages % and 2I4. that, iii order tn carry
out these acts OF August g. 1861, aud July Ii
1862 the President charged the Attorney Gen
cral with the superintendent? and direction u
all proceedings uudcr them, aud authorized
hin 20 give 10 tho d>liiai attorneys and mar
shaS such Instructions and directions - III
might find rcnd!ul and convenient, touching al
seizures, proceedings aud cond 2mnatlGnS under
them. Accordingly Oh the Sth Of January, 500
the Atterncv General issued general instruction
on the subject to district attorneys and marshas
Among these instructions the following Wer
given with regard to he seizure OF property: Al
seizures will be made BY the marshal or TIT
proper district, uudcr written authority 10 b'
given him by the district attorney, specifying
with reasonable certainty the property TO be
seized and the owner whose right Is sought tt
be couGscatcd. "Whca the marshal has seIzct
any property under such authority he will, with
GU. any unnecessary delay, make True return
thereof in writing to the district attorney
"Whcra the State law directs the method o
seizure it shall b. conlormed TO as nearly As may
be consistent with the objects OF the acts 0
Congress- Ii the thing to he sclzed be persona
property, it ought to be actually seized anc
SAFETY kept ; il real estate the marshal ought tt
seize all the right, title interest and estate o
the notice e 10 wF'i"s Of tn
stock or other in!aogibc property, the arsha
ought Of there be no specific mcthod prescribed
by the State law to describe tho property a
plaiuly ~ he eau in his rctu.n and leave tht
court to determine the sufficiency OF the seizure.
The subjac! Of the proceedings in this cause
viewing it most lavorably for the defendant
was "a credit The method OF seizure Of such
subject as directed by the State law, is tia
prescribed by the law in regard to Abatement
and where the debtor Is acorporatIon, as 10 TIL
case, notice OF the seizure ought to be given K
the person on whom, by law, process against tho
corporation is required to be served. BY tho
State law, Code Of 1850. chap. lj, sec. !, p
CAT, it is enacted that al attachment shall
be sufficiently levied 10 every case 10y a
service of copy Of such attachment on sucl
persons as may be designated by the plaintiff
10 writing, or be known to the officer, tt
be in possession Of effects Of, or to be in
debted to the defendant, and as To rea
estate by such estate being mentioned aud dc
scribed by endorsement on such attachment.
See also section II and l3 Of the same chapter,
Id page tbs. In regard to the execution Of
process on 1 corporation it is enacted 10 section
Of chapter 10, page 70T Of the same code
that ut shall be sufficient to serve any process
against or notice TO corporation, on its mayor,
rector, president, or other chief officer or il