Daniels v. Tearney

• Decision Date: 01 October 1880
• Citation: 26 L.Ed. 187,102 U.S. 415
• Parties: DANIELS v. TEARNEY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

102 U.S. 415

102 U.S. 415

26 L.Ed. 187

DANIELS v. TEARNEY.

October Term, 1880

ERROR to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, State of West Virginia.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Daniel B. Lucas for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Charles J. Faulkner, contra.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error, brought to reverse a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of West Virginia.

The case, as disclosed in the record, may be sufficiently stated for the purposes of this opinion, as follows:—— On the 18th of April, 1861, a convention of the State of Virginia passed an ordinance of secession, and on the 30th of that month a law entitled 'An Ordinance to provide against the sacrifice of property and to suspend proceedings in certain cases.' This ordinance declared that thereafter no execution (except in favor of the Commonwealth and against non-residents) should be issued, and that no sales should be made under deeds of trust or decrees without the consent of the parties interested, until otherwise provided by law; and that where executions were in the hands of the officer, whether levied or not, if the debtors should offer bond and security for the payment of the debt, interest, and costs, when the operation of the ordinance should cease, the property should be restored and the bond should be returned, as in the case of a forthcoming bond, and should be a lien on the realty of the obligors. If the debtor offered no bond, his property was to be appraised by three freeholders, at its value on the 6th of November, 1860, and unless the property would sell for the amount of the valuation, it should be restored to the debtor without lien.

The suit was brought in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, State of West Virginia, by Tearney and Wilson, executors of Colin C. Porter. The declaration sets forth that the defendants, on the first day of June, 1861, made their joint and several bond, whereby they bound themselves to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $1,597.18 when thereunto requested; and that there was a condition affixed to the bond, which was, 'that whereas, on the twenty-fifth day of March, 1861, a writ of fieri facias was issued from the clerk's office in the name of Colin C. Porter against Benjamin F. Daniels, for $747.92, with interest from the second day of January, 1860, until paid, and $31.97 costs; if, therefore, the said B. F. Daniels should pay the debt, interest, and costs, when the operation of the ordinance before mentioned should cease, then the obligation to be void, otherwise to be in full force.' It was averred that the operation of the ordinance had long since ceased, and yet that the defendants, though often requested so to do, had not paid the said sums of money or any part thereof, whereby an action had accrued, &c.

Among other pleas, the defendants filed one in hoec verba: 'For further plea to this action, the defendants say, that the bond in the declaration mentioned was executed by Benjamin F. Daniels, a citizen of the State of Illinois, as principal, and by William B. Daniels and D. M. Daniels, as his securities, in pursuance of the requirements and conditions of a statute passed in violation of the Constitution of the United States, heretofore, to wit, on the 30th of April, 1861, by the convention of the State of Virginia, and that said statute was subsidiary to and in aid of and in furtherance of the objects and policy of the ordinance of secession passed theretofore by said convention, to wit, on the ___ day of April, 1861, in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

'And the defendants say, that they rely on the fact that said statute and ordinance were in violation of and repugnant to the Constitution of the United States for their defence and plea in this case; and that they are unconstitutional the defendants are ready to verify.'

The plaintiff demurred. The court sustained the demurrer, and the defendants excepted. The parties thereupon waived a jury and submitted the case to the court, and a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff.

The defendants removed the case to the Supreme Court of Appeals for review. That court affirmed the judgment, and this writ of error was thereupon sued out.

The objection raised as to the jurisdiction of this court is untenable.

In Home Insurance Co. v. City Council of Augusta (93 U. S. 116), we said: 'Where a judgment or decree is brought to this court by a writ of error to a State court for review, the case, to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction on our part, must come within one of three categories:——

'1. There must have been drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or authority exercised under, the United States; and the decision must have been against the claim which either was relied upon to maintain.

'2. Or there must have been drawn in question a statute of, or authority exercised under, a State, upon the ground of repugnance to the Constitution, or a law or treaty, of the United States; and the decision must have been in favor of the validity of the State law or authority in question.

'3. Or a right must have been claimed under the Constitution, or a treaty, or law of, or by virtue of a commission held or authority exercised under, the United States; and the decision must have been against the right so claimed. Rev. Stat. 132, sect. 709; Sevier v. Haskell, 14 Wall. 15; Weston v. City Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449; McGuire v. The Commonwealth, 3 Wall. 385.'

The plea is neither full nor technical, but it does aver the invalidity of the statute under which the bond was taken, because it was in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and was passed 'in aid and furtherance of the objects and policy of the ordinance of secession,' and that the defendants 'rely on the fact that said statute and ordinance were in violation of, and repugnant to, the Constitution of the United States, for their defence and plea in this case.' This implies clearly that the defendants claimed, in addition to what was averred, that the bond was void in every aspect, and that they had a right, by reason of the premises, to exemption from liability under it. What is thus averred in a pleading is as effectual as if it were expressed. Haight v. Holley, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 258.

It thus appears that there was drawn in question the authority of the sheriff, exercised under a law of the State, in taking the bond, and that the decision was in favor of the validity of that authority; and that there was also a right of exemption from liability, claimed under the Constitution of the United States, and that the decision was against the right so claimed. These claims give us jurisdiction. Whether they are well founded remains to be considered. Jurisdiction is only 'the right to hear and determine.' The result of its exercise is the judgment of the court.

That the ordinance of secession was void is a proposition we need not discuss. The affirmative has been settled by the arbitrament of arms and the repeated adjudications of this court. Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; Hickman v. Jones, 9 id. 197; Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U. S. 193. It was supplemented and complemented by the statute authorizing the bond to be taken. The latter was one of a series of acts passed by the secession convention, all looking to the conflict of arms which was foreseen to be approaching. They were intended to prepare the State for the struggle, and were means to that end. The saving in the statute as to executions in favor of the Commonwealth and against non-residents was characteristic. It obviously contemplated the confiscation of the property of the latter as a war measure. We cannot doubt that the statute was invalid by reason of the treasonable motive and purpose by which its authors were animated in passing it. The provision that no executions should issue, and that no sales should be made under decrees or deeds of trust without the consent of the parties interested, 'until otherwise provided by law,' was clearly in conflict with the contract clause of the national Constitution. Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311; McCracken v. Hayward, 2 id. 608; Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595.

The...