Bolden v. Jensen
| Decision Date | 27 August 1895 |
| Citation | 69 F. 745 |
| Parties | BOLDEN v. JENSEN et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
A. R Coleman, for libelant.
W. F Rupert and Thomas Fitzgerald, for defendants.
The argument for the defendants upon this motion is founded upon section 990, Rev. St., which provides that 'no person shall be imprisoned for debt in any state, on process issuing from a court of the United States, where by the laws of such state, imprisonment for debt has been or shall be abolished,' and the amended forty-seventh admiralty rule which provides: ' * * * And imprisonment for debt, on process issuing out of the admiralty court, is abolished in all cases where, by the laws of the state in which the court is held, imprisonment for debt has been or shall be hereafter abolished, upon similar or analogous process issuing from a state court,'-- and the seventeenth section of article 1 of the constitution of this state, which declares that 'there shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in cases of absconding debtors.'
The statute and the rule refer only to imprisonment for debt, and do not affect the power of the court to issue a warrant of arrest as process for compelling defendants to respond to a claim for unliquidated damages, which is not a debt, any more than it restricts the power of the court to imprison defendants for nonpayment of fines or by way of punishment for contempt. The word 'debt,' when used in a statute, without some plain or explicit declaration making it applicable thereto, does not include taxes nor claims for unliquidated damages. The legal definition of the word is opposed to unliquidated damages, or a liability in the sense of an inchoate or contingent debt, or an obligation not enforceable by ordinary process. Rap. & L. Law Dict.; Cooley Tax'n, p. 13; Lane Co. v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71-81. In the case of The Kentucky, Fed. Cas. No. 7,717, Mr. Justice Nelson, in discussing the admiralty rule above quoted, says that the rule was drawn with great care, and for the express purpose of conforming the practice in suits sounding in contract, in the district court, in admiralty, as to the arrest and imprisonment of the person of the defendant, to that of the state for like or analogous cases; and he interprets the rule thus:
'That is, if a defendant in the state court is exempt from personal arrest and imprisonment on all process, whether mesne or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jewell v. Nuhn
... ... Moore v. Green , ... (N.C.) 21 Am. Rep. 470; Long v. McLean , 88 N.C. 3, ... 4. And so of taxes or unliquidated claims. Bolden v ... Jensen , 69 F. 745, 746. These are, however, not ... controlling, because the very language of the provision ... indicated, by excepting ... ...
-
Shelby v. Ziegler
...of the defendants, as trustees of the corporation, for its torts, although reduced to judgment." ¶22 In the case of Bolden v. Jensen et al. (D. C.) 69 F. 745, Hanford, District Judge, in construing section 990 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 709), which provides that "no p......
-
The Scarritt Estate Company v. J. F. Schmelzer & Sons Arms Company
...And the term "debt" as defined by most of the appellate courts of the country, does not include a claim for unliquidated damages. [69 F. 745 at 745-746; In re (N. Y.), 12 Daly 454; Watson v. McNany, 4 Bibb. (Ky.) 356; Lindsay v. King, 23 N.C. 401; Dowling v. Stewart, 4 Ill. 193; Baum v. Ton......
-
State ex rel. Riefling v. Sale
...S.W. 480; Estate Co. v. Arms Co., 110 Mo.App. 406-412; Grafton v. Ferry Co., 19 N.Y.S. 968; Whitcomb v. Davenport, 63 Vermont 656; Bolden v. Jenson, 69 F. 745; Powell Railroad, 36 F. Rep. 726; Child v. Boston, 137 Mass. 516. CAULFIELD, J. Reynolds, P. J., and Nortoni, J., concur. OPINION Or......