Court Opinion

ID: 6664670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:05:14.642819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:18.109975
License: Public Domain

Magrtjdeir, J.,
dissented in part, and delivered the following opinion :
Until the passage of the act of 1804, for the relief of insolvent debtors, all applications were required to be made, by persons of that description, to the chancellor, and he alone was authorised to act upon such applications, and to grant the relief which was sought. The proceedings, preparatory to to the discharge, were very much as now, except that the chancellor only could order or sanction them.
These annual insolvent acts, created an insolvent’s court, of which the chancellor was the judge, as he was of the land office, received compensation for his services therein, distinct from the salary paid to him as chancellor and judge of the land office, and had power to do some acts ex officio, and to frame issues for the trial of facts, when he thought them necessary. These were powers conferred upon him by act of Assembly, and a grant of them would have been unnecessary, if, in acting upon the application of an insolvent, he was acting as chancellor, and exercising any branch of chancery jurisdiction.
The necessary consequence of any application to him and discharge of the insolvent, was, that the estate given up by the insolvent, created a trust fund in the hands of his trustee, who possessed the same powers, had to perform the same duties, and was responsible in the same way, that any other trustee for the benefit of creditors is. To the creditors the trustee was responsible, and, in the chancery court, might be made to render an account and complete his trust, and this without any additional powers conferred, by the insolvent or other laws, upon that court. To compel trustees, (no matter whether appointed by the chancellor, in consequence of an application by a debtor for his discharge under the insolvent law, or by the debtor himself, by deed, conveying property in trust for the benefit of his creditors,) to discharge their trust, was, and always had been, an acknowledged branch of chancery jurisdiction.
*165'Hie regular course of proceeding when a cestui que trust, or any person interested in the trust fund, wished the trust to be completed, was, to file a bill, and this would be the commencement of a regular chancery suit, to be conducted as such, and, in the course of time, to be ended in a decree, by the chancellor distributing the trust fund. Prom this decree, any party who thought himself aggrieved, no doubt had a right to appeal, as well as from any other decree.
If, then, the chancellor was still the person to receive insolvent’s applications, and grant discharges, and the application in this case had been made to him, and he had passed the order now appealed from, there can, it is believed, be no doubt that an appeal would lie from that order.
The insolvent jurisdiction has been take a from the chancellor, though without taking from him any portion of his jurisdiction iu cases of trusts, and to that court the parties interested in this trust fund, must have applied lor relief, if no such power to grant them relief had been conferred upon any other tribunal. It would not, of necessity, belong to the tribunal which granted relief to the insolvent.
The county courts might have been invested with the power to appoint a trustee, take his bond, and grant a final discharge, without any power to call that trustee to account, and had certainly no such power in 1S04. A law conferring upon them that power, would be an enlargement of their equity jurisdiction. This power, no doubt, has been conferred by a later act of Assembly, (1814, ch. 94,) giving to the county court, very extensive equity powers indeed.
It is alleged, that the power to distribute the trust fund among the creditors, as well as the power to grant the discharge, is in the county courts, and it seems to be thought by some, that in these acts, they are sitting as a court of common law. This can scarcely bo true, nor is it true, as thought by some, that this is a common law court, possessing some chancery powers. It is one court, possessed of common law and chancery jurisdiction, but it would be as correct to say, that it is a court of equity, possessed of some of the powers of a court of common law, as to call it a court of law, exercising occasionally equity *166powers, when “sitting as a court of equity.” These courts are not exercising common law jurisdiction, when settling an account between the trustee of an insolvent and the creditors, or ordering the trustees to render an account of the trust fund, and a common law court would find some difficulty in exercising such powers, even if the law directed them, in the discharge of these duties, to act as a common law .tribunal. In 1st Bland, 67, it is said: “If the legislature directs any thing to be done, it either provides the means to be pursued to effect its object, or it is partially or wholly silent as to the manner of proceeding. If the prescribed means are such, as can only be exercised at common law or in equity, then the one or the other of those tribunals must be clothed with exclusive jurisdiction accordingly, or the enactment may be such, as to allow them to have concurrent jurisdiction. But, if its nature be such, that the prescribed mode can be executed by neither, or the right given be such, that, according t.o their several limited and settled modes of proceeding, neither of them can grant proper redress, they cannot, in any way, supply the deficiency; because, even upon English authority, a court of justice cannot be permitted, in any case, to legislate; and because, by the constitution of our republic, the three departments having been directed to be kept forever separate, the judiciary has been expressly excluded from every species of legislation, and is precluded from supplying any omissions of the legislature, however obvious and necessary it may be for attaining the object in view.” Lord Eldon, in 2nd Jacob & Walker, p. 371, remarks: “If the powers of both, (equity and common law,) taken together, can give the king’s subjects nothing but an action for damages, it is a defect which, whether it proceeds from mistake on the part of the legislature, or, if I may presume to say so, from negligent inattention, no court can supply. The legislature has not entrusted that authority to courts of justice. It is not said, that they can legislate, but that the act is to be carried into execution by the known rules of law and equity. What the legislature has directed to be. done, or may have prohibited, the courts, as far as their known rules and principles will permit, will endeavor to enforce; but if their *167known rules and principles will not supply a remedy, if the legislature has mistaken its way, no court of justice can supply the deficiency.”
The act of 1785, chap. 33, enables land-holders to have their lands marked and bounded. That law “provides the means to be pursued, to effect the object.” If, however, this had not been done, if the law had merely authorised an application to the county courts, and had directed the courts, when such applications were made to them, to proceed to have the land marked and bounded, “the rules of the courts of common law or of equity, would have been insufficient to assure to the citizen any right which it was intended that he should derive from that law:” the law would have been a dead letter, until the General Assemblymade provision for carrying it into effect; yet such law, perhaps, would not have been more defective, than an act of Assembly to direct a court, without equity jurisdiction, to settle up insolvent estates. A court of common law, perhaps, might, by the old action of account, afford a partial, but it would have been a very inadequate remedy. The mode to be pursued, in order to a settlement of the. estate of an insolvent applicant, is precisely the same, as it would be if the debtor, instead of applying for a discharge under the insolvent laws, had made an arrangement with his creditors, and had conveyed his property, or a jrortion of it, to an individual, in trust, to sell the same, and appropriate the proceeds of sale to the payment of his debts. In such a case, any party aggrieved may appeal, and I can perceive no reason for denying to a party, who supposes himself to be aggrieved, in the settlement of an insolvent’s estate, the same right of appeal.
In the case of bankruptcy in England, this right of appeal may be denied, but our ancestors were not very partial to the bankrupt system of England, and are not understood to have adopted any provision peculiar to it. The reasons which exist in England for denying in any such cases a right of appeal, do not exist here; and here, the right of appeal as given by law, cannot be abridged by provisions to be found in the bankrupt law of England, or in that which has existed in the United States.
*168My opinion then,-is, that the'legislature possesses the power, and may at any time exercise it, to take the right of appeal from all parties interested in cases like this; but, until denied by the legislature, the right exists, and I can discover no law which excepts- cases of this description, from the remedy by appeal given to parties aggrieved, by the decisions of the county courts, sitting in those cases, not as courts of common law, but as courts of equity. I am therefore for entertaining, the appeal.
My warrant for affirming the decree of the court below in this case, I find in Scott vs. Nesbit, 2nd Bro. Chan. Rep’ts, 640.