Court Opinion

ID: 9868415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:34:47.215607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:50.326840
License: Public Domain

ON Petition to Beheab.
It was held in this cause, affirming the Chancellor, that the execution could not be validly levied on the money *560in the possession of the arresting officers, which had been taken from the person of the debtor upon his arrest by these officers on a criminal charge wholly disconnected with the money in question; and, further, that a bill of discovery directed to this particular fund could not be sustained.
A petition to rehear seeks to have the Court so modify or amend its opinion as to recognize, nevertheless, an execution lien on this money, with the effect of impounding the money and holding it subject to a lien in favor of the execution creditor enforceable upon the discharge of the prisoner-defendant from custody and the return to him thereof.
The theory advanced is, as we understand, that under well settled law' an execution relates to its teste, or at least to the date of its issuance to the sheriff, and that the continuity of this lien which had attached to the money has not been broken by its present immunity from levy; that the lien continues and may be enforced whenever the money becomes free from the immunity protecting it from levy decreed in this cause.
As above indicated, this Court fully recognizes the law in this jurisdiction to be that, generally, but subject to exceptions to be noted, the lien of an execution lien relates to its teste, and attaches to all the personal property of the defendant debtor within the County of the issuance of the execution, and that this lien may fasten on money of the debtor; but it is also well settled that the lien attaches to money, or other personal property, only when the specific property is subject to levy. If it is not subject to be levied on, no lien attaches thereto. The lien exists only in connection with the execution and only when the property is subject to levy. Edwards v. Thompson, 85 Tenn., 720, 4 S. W., 913, 4 Am. St. Rep., *561807. And see Volume 7, Michie’s Digest, p. 68, where this excerpt from the case above cited is quoted:
“If for any reason the property of the debtor cannot be seized under execution, it cannot be affected by the usual lien or the doctrine of relation. If the property is absolutely protected from execution under statutory exemption laws, of course there is no lien upon it. So if it is free from execution during a specified period, it is free from the lien during the same period.”
That was a case of growing crops free from execution for a statutorily fixed period. This case is cited for this holding by Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (see notes), Volume XI, p. 673, along with Cecil v. Carson, 86 Tenn., 139, 5 S. W., 532, and Stahlman v. Watson (Tenn. Ch. App.), 39 S. W., 1055. Cases holding to the contrary rule are cited, but in this jurisdiction the rule is as stated.
We have held in the instant case, and now re-affirm, that the money here involved was and is “free from execution, ’ ’ and it follows that ‘ ‘ there is no lien upon it. ’ ’ If it should be conceded that there was ever a lien upon it, the continuity of such lien was definitely broken when this money was taken from the prisoner by the officers and. the lien no longer exists.
But does it here appear that this money was ever previously subject to be levied upon and therefore at any previous time subject to the lien? We think not. ,
So far as disclosed by this record, this money was never, since it became the property of the debtor, kept, deposited or otherwise held than upon his person, in the manner in which money is customarily carried, that is, in the pocket. While money may be the subject of lien and may be seized under execution under- some circumstances and conditions, illustrated in the leading case of Dolby v. Mullins, 22 Tenn., 437, 30 Am. Dec., 180, and *562other cases relied on by petitioner snch as English v. King, 57 Tenn., 666, 672-674, “money in the hands of a debtor is not subject to be seized under execution,” and is, therefore, not affected by lien. Maples v. Rawlins, 105 Tenn., 457, at page 458, 58 S. W., 644, at page 645, 80 Am. St. Rep., 903. This is an exception to the rule that money may be seized under an execution.
This exception to the general rule that personal property, which includes money, may not be'levied on and seized under execution when on the person of the debtor, stated in Maples v. Rawlins, supra, is well established in England and followed in the Courts of this country, and is grounded on the reason that such a taking would lead to breaches of the peace and physical conflicts and the violation of constitutional rights not permissible in the enforcement of dvil process. The only recognized exception to this exception is when the levy and seizure may be effected without physical conflict and breach of the peace. See text of 33 C. J. S., Executions, sec. 19', pp. 153, 154, and notes, citing, among other cases, Mack v. Parks, 8 Gray (Mass.), 517, 69 Am. Dec., 267, and Green v. Palmer, 15 Cal., 411, 76 Am. Dec., 492; also, 21 Am. Jur., p. 198, and cases cited in note 6.
Moreover, as applicable to the facts of the instant case, it must be borne in mind that the other rule we have followed in this case, that money taken from one under arrest may not be seized under an execution in the hands of the officer who has taken it from his person, rests on the principle that no advantage may be secured founded on this forceful taking from the person, where it was secure from taking by or under civil process. The reason why it may not be seized in the hands of the officer, is that in the bodily or physical possession' of the debtor it was in a position when taken by the officer of protection *563or immunity from seizure under execution. If under other circumstances, the money of a debtor comes to the hands of an officer who has an execution in his hands against the owner, it may be applied to satisfaction of such execution. Dolby v. Mullins, 22 Tenn., 437, 30 Am. Dec., 180; Cooper v. Potter, 175 Tenn., 664, 137 S. W. (2d), 276. So, if it be in the hands of a third person that person may be garnished. See English v. King, supra. The opinion of Mr. Justice McKinney, in the recent ease of Cooper v. Potter, supra, cites, among cases holding that an officer who has money, collected for a plaintiff under an execution, may apply such money to the satisfaction of an execution in his hands against this plaintiff, Maples v. Rawlins, supra, wherein, in the same paragraph, the rule above quoted from that case was stated, that “money in the hands of a debtor is not subject to be seized under execution.”
Language quoted and italicised in our opinion, 181 S. W. (2d), 979, from the leading case of Commercial Exch. Bank v. McLeod, 65 Iowa, 665, 19 N. W., 329, 22 N. W., 919, 54 Am. Rep., 36; bears directly on this point. The Court reasons ’that money taken from the prisoner, in no way connected with the offense charged, should not be subjected to seizure under execution because the personal possession of the sheriff “should be regarded as the personal possession of the prisoner, and the money and property should be no more liable to attachment than if they were in the prisoner’s pockets.” And again,'the quotation concludes, “But the possession of the officer was the possession of the defendant.” The Court rightly assumes the rule to be that when property is in the personal possession, in the “pockets” of the *564owner-debtor, it is not subject to seizure under execution, as stated in Maple v. Rawlins, supra.
Since, therefore, this money is not now subject to levy, and is not shown to have been subject to be levied on at any time since issuance, of the execution, no lien either now rests on it, or has at any previous time attached thereto. It results that none can be decreed and the petition must be dismissed.