The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1892-02-23
THE OPINION FILED.
n LENGTHY REVIEW FROM THE So
PEEME COURT IN TIE Ryan CASE
Was it Imprisonment for Debt?-Ille Cues
ton Handled in ALI Its Bearings by
Judge Lumpkin-A Synopsis.

|
| The opinion of the supreme court in the
! Stephen A. Ryan contempt case hos been filed
| by tho supreme court.
| And voluminous document it is
The opinion was prepared by Judge Lump
| kin 1t is long article on Imprisonment for
| debt.
| The report starts out as follows:
SIT was earnestly conrended by counsel for
| plaintiff in error in the argument here, that
| the order of the court requiring the surrender
of this money, upon failure to do so, that
| Ryan be confined in Jail until he did, was i'm
| prsonment for debt. There is to our minds
| clear distinction between q decree for the mere
| payment Of money, rendered without due re-
| gard Whatsoever to defendants ability to pay,
| and without having previously ascer-
| tanned that he has the money, and an order
| made in proper case directing him TO deliver
| up money conclusiveiy shown to be in his
| possession. Judgments are rendered every
| day by tho courts in favor OF the plai ntitTS
| against the defendants for money due, ire
| spective Of the fact whether the latter are
| pauperS or millionaires. Refusal to pay such
| Judgment is in no case contempt OF court, and
| an Imprisonment for such failure would be
| Imprisonment for debt, pure and simple
| There is not the slightest reason to apprehend
| that any court III Georgia will ever attempt,
under cur present constitution, to mpriSon a
| debtor simply because no does not satisfy
! judgment for money against him. OF that cur
| constitution will ever be 50 amended as to au-
thorize tolerate such proceeding.
But whelr-our courts are given by an express
| statute, which is itself in complete harmony
| with our constitution, as VIII DE hereinafter
| shown, the power and authority to take pos
session of debtors property and
administer it for the benefit of
| his creditors, and q court, in the due and
| proper exercise of that authority, ascertans
| conclusiyeiy chat a debtor actually has money
| or other assets in his possession subject to his
| dcbtss and orders him 20 deliver up the same,
| disobedience to such order is not imprisonment
| for debt 1t is by no means the case Of an I'M
| fortunate debtor imprisoned because he cannot
| pay bis debts, but that Of a Contumacious
| debtor. who will not obey the lawful orders Of
| the court though lie has the power to do So"
Ensolvcnt Traders' Act.
Here some space is devoted to the insolvcnt
! traders act. Continuing, the opinion reads:
"The court must, by its proper officer, take
| possession and control Of all Of the defendants
| property, including money and administer tho
! same for the benefit Of the creditors. That the
| money referred to III the act under considera-
| ton includes money in the defendants own
| possession there can be DO doubt. The act eX-
| pressly mentions, and provides for the col!cc-
| ton Of, chooses III action which would, of
course, cover all money due him on notes, &C
| counts, or Other demands upon which he would
| have the right TO sue; and there is no reason
whatever to suppose the legislature in
| tended TO exclude from tho operation
! of this law so important an item of as
sets rs money actually in the possession,
custody or control Of the debtor. Tie use of
tho word money Immediately following the
| words chooses il action. raises The strongest
| md of Az inference that the word money was
| intended 70 cover ali the money the debtor
| had, whether in his own possession that of
another; and this inference becomes almost, i
not absolutely conclusive, when il is remenl-
bered that tie act deals with those classes of
defendants, including merchants and cor
pocat;ons, who are most likely, at
all times, to have money on
hand in greater or less quantities,
and especially so as the times are when they
are abont to fail in business. But
how is the money 10 be reached? The act
tells us. A receiver is 70 be appointed to col
loct and preserve the assets, including, as we
have shown, this money How is the receiver
TO get tie assets which III the defendants
immediate possession? In the usua! course Of
things he demands them from the defendant
IF the defendant refuses 10 surrender, the
court must compel him to do So and this the
court cannot do otherwise than by exercising
its power 10 punish for contempt. If the thing
withheld is a box Of goods, the cOur3s author
ity to use this remedy Is plain enough. Why,
then, under this clear and emphatic law, is it
less SO when the thing withhold is a given
SUM Of money, known to he in the defendants
possession? Let is bc borne III mind that as
this case now stands before this court. we are
forced to deal with Il as one in which Ryan
actually has the money and Wi!lnot give it UP.
If our conclusion is no; right as to the mean
ing Of tie act under consideration, and Tie
method OF its enforcement IS to money
i'll a Defendants hands, it is i'll
a large measure vain and rn-
profitable attempt to remedy one Of tho great
est evils at which it Is unGuestonably aimed,
viz: he secretion Of his means by an insol-
vent trader for tie purpose of defraudng his
crclitcrs. VII! 1t be said that the court IS
uowcr,ess to prevent his, and that It's re-
cciver may be laughed Il and doted by a cred
itor whose pockets are pehoric with money
rightly belonging 10 others, and who boldly pre-
claims. / am protected in :!o robbery have
perpotrated on my creditors By the constitu-
that Che insoiyent traders act IS harsh one.
Even if this is true, it affords 10 reason 70 Che
courts for refusing to enforce it, In spirit and
in purpose it is wise and sa.utary law. This |
is evidenced by tie fact that The legislature
has permitted it to remain for more than ten
years unaitered, except by the act Of 1889,
which 10 some extent modified and softened
its provisions"
Dishonest and Honest Debts.
Several pages are here devoted TO citations
from the courts OF other states and an opinion
from Judge Mcfarland, Of Tennessee, is !
quoted at length.
The opinion closes as follows:
Care shou,d be taken to avoid the mex |
cusable mistake of ClGScing honest debtors, |
who fail 20 pay only because ;.Iey cannot, with |
disl oucst deb, ors, vino thrive by fraud and |
conceal the property in their possession from |
those 20 w1om il really belongs. With the |
former, not cnly tie courts and iuries. but all |
pl.iianthropists and patriots Will earnestly |
sylnpathllo, and neither law nor enlightened |
public opinion, ii which tic law is born and |
Graded viii ever permit them 10 be punished |
simply because OF tier misfortuneS II ia at /
tie latter, and ut them a'one the constitution |
aims when il says the legislature may provide !
for Che Punishment OF fraud. and shall provide |
for reaching property concealed from creditors. |
If the act under consideration was not deho- |
erately passed, i'll pursuance OF these pro- |
visions OF our organic law, it harmonizes with |
them most admirably. 1t is our sworn duty 10
uphold it, aud by 50 Going, compel those |
Who grow rich by swlndling and tatten by |
fraud, to disgorge their ll.gotten gains and re-
store what they have to those who trusted |
them not wisely but too far. No mawkish
sympathy for one who buys never intending to
pay, and who resorts to disgraceul schemes |
and dishonest devices to compass great wealth !
without labor, and to this end concea's the |
fruits of his fraudulent endeavorS from his |
creditors, should, or viii deter the legislature
of this state, its judiciary, from their deter
nIination to uphold common honesty, |
ntNly