Court Opinion

ID: 9841621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 19:59:55.256481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:23.946626
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Taney:
I concur with the majority of the Court in affirming the judgment of the eircuit court. But I do hot assent to that part of the opinion which declares that.the circuit courts óf the United States have not the power to issue 'the process of attachment against the p/operty of a debtor, who is not an inhabitant of the- United States. It does not appear by the record that this point was raised' in the court below; and I understand from the learned judge who presided at the trial, that it was not' made.
The decisions on this question ’ have not been uniform at the circuits. In -several districts where this process had been authorized by' the laws of the states, the circuit courts of the United States adopted it in practice;, and appeared to have considered the act of congress of *3371789, as' having authorized its adoption! The different opinions entertained in different circuits, show that upon this point the' construction of the act of 1789 is not free from difficulty; and as the legality of this process has been recognised in some'of the circuits for many years, it is probable that condemnations and- sales have taken place under such attachments, and that property is now held by bona fide purchasers who bought, and paid their .money, in the-co.nfidence náturally inspired by the judgment of the court.
If the case before us required the decision of this'question, it would be our duty io meet it and decide it.. But the point is-not necessarily involved in the decision of this case; and I am, therefore, unwilling to express an opinion' upon it.'
The attachment, in the case before us was dissolved by the appearance of the defendant; and no final judgment was. given upon it in the court below. When the defendant appeared and pled in bar to the declaration filed by the plaintiff, the controversy became an ordinary suit between plaintiff anddefendant; the proceedings on the attachment were at an end, and could in no degree influence the future ' progress and decision of the action. And this Court, in revising the judgment given by the circuit court in such ari action, cannot look back to the proceedings in .the attachhient in which' no judgment was given; nor can the refusal of the circuit court to quash the attachment on the motion made by the defendant, be assigned as error in this Court. The validity of thai process, therefore, need not be drawn into question in the judgment of this Court, on -the. case presented here for decision. .For whether the attachment was legal or illegal, the judgment of the circuit court* as the case comes before us, must be affirmed. And as the question is an important one, and may affect the fights of individuals who are not before- the Court, and as •the case under consideration does not require us to decide it; I think' it advisable to abstain from expressing an opinion upon it: and do ' not assent to' that part (5f the opinion of the.Court which declares that the process in question is not authorized by the acts of-congress.
Mr. Justice Baldwin .agreed with the Chief Justice in the .opinion ■ delivered by him; if it was necesáary, he would go’further as to the authority of the courts of the United States to issue foreign attachments. .
Mr. Justice Wayne agreed with the Chief Justice in opinion. He *338thought the circuit courts of the United States had authority to issue foreign attachments. The decision- on that point, is not necessary to the decision of this case.
,Mr. Justice Catron had not formed any opinion on the question of the right of the circuit courts to issue foreign attachments. He thought that question did not come before the Court in this case; and it was not necessary to examine or decide it. '
This cause came on to be heard on the transcriptof the record from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and was'argued by counsel. . On consideration Whereof," it is' how Here ordered and adjudged by this Court, that the judgment of the said cir'cuit.eourt in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed, with cdsts.