Ex parte Boyd

Citation26 L.Ed. 1200,105 U.S. 647
PartiesEX PARTE BOYD
Decision Date01 October 1881
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

PETITION for a writ of habeas corpus.

The facts and the statutes bearing upon the question involved are set out in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Royer M. Sherman for the petitioner.

The Solicitor-General for the United States.

MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the court.

It is made to appear, by this application, that a judgment was recovered in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, in favor of the United States against Robert Boyd, the petitioner, and Francis O'Rourke, on which execution was issued and returned unsatisfied, except in the sum of $200, leaving due thereon $8,128.92. It was thereupon ordered by the court, on motion of the plaintiff's attorney, that the matter be referred to Joseph M. Deuel, Esq., a commissioner of the court, 'to examine the said Robert Boyd and Francis O'Rourke, and take answers on oath concerning their property, and to reduce such answers and examination to writing, and also to examine on oath, concerning such property, such witnesses as may be offered by the respective parties, and reduce such examination to writing, and report such answers and examination, and all his proceedings under and by virtue of this order, to this c ourt with all convenient speed, and the said Deuel is hereby appointed a referee in this action for the purpose aforesaid. And it is further ordered that the said Robert Boyd and Francis O'Rourke do appear before the said referee at his office in the Post Office building, New York City, on the 22d of May, 1879, at eleven o'clock A. M., to answer before said referee concerning their property as aforesaid; and for that purpose to appear before the referee from time to time as he shall direct and appoint.'

The petitioner moved the court to vacate this order, for illegality, which motion was denied. Being required to submit to the examination, he refused to take an oath to testify under said order, whereupon, on motion of the attorney for the United States, the Circuit Court ordered that he be attached and committed to the custody of the marshal, as punishment for a contempt of the court in so refusing to be sworn. From that imprisonment the petitioner seeks to be discharged, and to that end prays for a writ of habeas corpus.

The grounds on which the right to this relief is founded are set forth in his petition, as follows:——

'Your petitioner is informed and believes that proceedings supplementary to execution, wherein your petitioner is restrained of his liberty, are not, by the laws of the State of New York, a remedy in common-law causes to reach the property of the judgment debtor allowed in actions at law in the courts of the United States by sect. 916 of the Revised Statutes of the United States; but, on the contrary, that these proceedings are, by the laws of the State of New York, prescribed as part of a code to abolish common-law causes, as such, and to amalgamate and indiscriminate common-law causes and suits in equity, and to confer upon the courts of that State, indifferently, in the same action powers in actions at law and in equity. Your petitioner is informed and believes that the application of this provision of that code to the courts of the United States is not authorized by any act of Congress, and is in conflict with the provisions of Article III., sect. 2, of the Constitution of the United States, which preserves and establishes the distinction between relief at law and in equity. Your petitioner, therefore, avers and charges that the said Circuit Court was and is wholly without jurisdiction in the premises, and that, therefore, all its proceedings therein are null and void.'

The material portions of the present statutes of New York referred to, and which were in force at the time of the adoption of the Revised Statutes of the United States, are as follows:——

'PROCEEDINGS SUPPLEMENTARY TO EXECUTION.

'SECT. 292. (1.) When an execution against property of the judgment debtor, or of any one of the several debtors in the same judgment, issued to the sheriff of the county where he resides or has a place of business, . . . is returned unsatisfied in whole or in part, the judgment creditor, at any time after such return made, is entitled to an order from a judge of the court . . . requiring such judgment debtor to appear and answer concerning his property, before such judge at a time and place specified in the order, within the county to which the execution was issued. . . .

'(3.) On an examination under this section, either party may examine witnesses in his behalf, and the judgment debtor may be examined in the same manner as a witness.

* * * * *

'(5.) No person shall, on examination pursuant to this chapter, be excused from answering any question on the ground that his examination will tend to convict him of the commission of a fraud; but his answer shall not be used as evidence against him in any criminal proceeding or prosecution. Nor shall he be excused from answering any question on the ground that he has, before the examination, executed any conveyance, assignment, or transfer of his property for any purpose; but his answer shall not be used as evidence against him in any criminal proceeding or prosecution.

'SECT. 295. Witnesses may be required to appear, and testify in any proceedings under this chapter, in the same manner as upon the trial of an issue.

'SECT. 296. The party or witness may be required to attend before the judge, or before a referee appointed by the court or judge; if before a referee, the examination shall be taken by the referee, and certified to the judge. All examinations and answers before a judge or referee, under this chapter, shall be on oath.

'SECT. 297. The judge may order any property of the judgment debtor, not exempt from execution in the hands either of himself or any other person, or due to the judgment debtor, to be applied towards the satisfaction of the judgment.

* * * * *

'SECT. 298. The judge may also, by order, appoint a receiver of the property of the judgment debtor, in the same manner, and with the like authority, as if the appointment was made by the court, according to sect. 244*. But before the appointment of such receiver the judge shall ascertain, if practicable, by the oath of the party or otherwise, whether any other supplementary proceedings are pending against the judgment debtor, and if such proceedings are so pending, the plaintiff therein shall have notice to appear before him and shall likewise have notice of all subsequent proceedings in relation to said receivership. No more than one receiver of the property of a judgment debtor shall be appointed. The judge may also, by order, forbid a transfer, or other disposition of the property of the judgment debtor, not exempt from execution, and any interference therewith. Whenever the judge shall grant an order for the appointment of a receiver of the property of the judgment debtor, the same shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the court of the county where the judgment-roll in the action . . . is filed; and the said clerk shall record the order in a book to be kept. . . . A certified copy of said order shall be delivered to the receiver named therein, and he shall be vested with the property and effects of the judgment debtor from the time of the filing and recording of the order as aforesaid. The receiver of the judgment debtor shall be subject to the direction and control of the court in which the judgment was obtained, upon which the proceedings are founded. . . . But before he shall be vested with any real property of such judgment debtor a certified copy of said order shall also be filed and recorded in the office of the clerk of the county in which any real estate of such judgment debtor, sought to be affected by such order, is situated, and also in the office of the clerk of the county in which such judgment debtor resides.

'SECT. 299. If it appear that a person, or corporation, alleged to have property of a judgment debtor, or indebted to him, claims an interest in the property adverse to him or denies the debt, such interest or debt shall be recoverable only in an action against such person or corporation by the receiver, but the judge may, by order, forbid a transfer, or other disposition of such property or interest, till a sufficient opportunity be given to the receiver to commence the action, and to prosecute the same to judgment and execution but such order may be modified or dissolved by the judge granting the same, at any time, on such security as he shall direct.

'SECT. 300. The judge may, in his discretion, order a reference to a referee agreed upon by the parties, or appointed by him, to report the evidence or the facts, and may, in his discretion, appoint such referee in the first order, or at any time.

'SECT. 302. (1.) If any person, party or witness, disobey an order of the judge or referee, duly served, such person, party or witness, may be punished by the judge as for a contempt. (2.) And in all cases of commitment under this chapter . . . the person committed may, in case of inability to perform the act required or to endure the imprisonment, be discharged from imprisonment, by the court or judge committing him, or the court in which the judgment was rendered, on such terms as may be just.'

Section 16 of the Revised Statutes, which repeats, in this respect, the provisions of sect. 6 of the act of June 1, 1872, c. 255, 'to further the administration of justice,' is as follows: 'The party recovering a judgment in any common-law cause, in any Circuit or District Court, shall be entitled to similar remedies upon the same, by execution or otherwise, to reach the property of the judgment debtor as are now provided in like causes by the laws of the State in which such court is held, or by any such laws hereafter enacted which may be adopted by general rules of such Circuit or ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • EH Rohde Leather Co. v. Duncan & Sons
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • October 8, 1926
    ...(C. C. A.) 266 F. 81; London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Doyle (C. C.) 130 F. 719; Brown v. McDonald (C. C.) 130 F. 964; Ex parte Boyd, 105 U. S. 647, 26 L. Ed. 1200; Brown v. Swann, 10 Pet. 497, 9 L. Ed. 508; United States v. Bitter Root Co., 200 U. S. 451, 26 S. Ct. 318, 50 L. Ed. 550; Ha......
  • Lackett v. Rumbaugh
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • January 15, 1891
    ... ... [45 F. 25] ... deed and releases agreed upon in the articles of compromise ... Upon this question of fact I have not considered the ex parte ... affidavit of James H. Rumbaugh, filed six weeks after the ... trial in open court, in which he was not examined as a ... witness; as I think ... orders of the court in reference to such fund, and in obeying ... such orders he is under the protection of the law ... Mattingly v. Boyd, 20 How. 128; Habich v ... Folger, 20 Wall. 1. The answer of the garnishee in this ... case is full, direct, and positive as to the facts and ... ...
  • In re Appeal of Cunningham
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1932
    ... ... cause by the laws of the state in which such court is held ... Street R.R. Co. v. Hart, 114 U.S. 654; Ex parte ... Boyd, 105 U.S. 647, 26 L. ed. 1200 ...          Arnold ... C. Forbes, for respondent ...          Matthew ... W. Murphy, ... ...
  • Lillian Slocum v. New York Life Insurance Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 21, 1913
    ...to those existing in the courts of the state within which the trial is had. Sawin v. Kenny, 93 U. S. 289, 23 L. ed. 926; Ex parte Boyd, 105 U. S. 647, 26 L. ed. 1200; Ex parte Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co. 128 U. S. 544, 32 L. ed. 508, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 150; Glenn v. Sumner, 132 U. S. 152, 156, 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Equity's Constitutional Source.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 132 No. 5, March 2023
    • March 1, 2023
    ...broadly consistent with the one set forth in this Article. (481.) See supra notes 318-323 and accompanying text. (482.) See Ex parte Boyd, 105 U.S. 647, 655-57 (1881). The extent of congressional authority to augment the default system of equitable remedies is unclear. See Bray, supra note ......
  • EQUITY AND THE SOVEREIGN.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 No. 5, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...as abolish or restrict.") (quoting Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis R. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 264 (1933)); Ex parte Boyd, 105 U.S. 647, 656 (1881) ("And the remaining question, therefore, becomes, not so much whether Congress may, by appropriate legislation, transmute an equita......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT