Corbitt v. Farmers' Bank of Delaware
| Decision Date | 19 March 1902 |
| Citation | 114 F. 602 |
| Parties | CORBITT v. FARMERS' BANK OF DELAWARE et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
McLemore & Corbitt, for complainant.
Heath & Heath, for defendants.
By decree entered in the United States district court for the Eastern district of Virginia, on the 23d day of December 1901, in the matter of the West Norfolk Lumber Company in bankruptcy, a check was directed to be drawn in favor of the defendant the Farmers' Bank of Delaware, or Heath & Heath, its counsel, on the funds to the credit of the court, in its registry in the City National Bank of Norfolk Va., for the sum of $12,316.49. On the 27th of December a check pursuant to such order was duly issued and delivered to the defendant bank's counsel. On the 26 of December this suit was instituted in the court of law and chancery of the city of Norfolk, by the trustee of the bankrupt company, asserting certain preferences claimed to have been made to the defendant bank within four months of the bankruptcy, in which suit an attachment was sued out, and on the morning of the 27th served upon the president of the City National Bank of Norfolk, and Heath & Heath, attorneys, before the payment of the check was demanded of the bank. By proper proceedings in the state court the cause was regularly removed to this court, and is pending therein, and is now before the court upon a motion to abate the attachment, sued out and executed, as aforesaid, upon the officers of the registry of the court and the attorneys of the defendant company.
The removal of the cause from the state court to this court does not disentitle the defendant bank to move to abate the attachment sued out, nor dies it admit that it was rightfully pending in the state court, or that the defendant could have been compelled to answer therein; and in this court the defendant can avail itself of any and every defense, duly and seasonably reserved and pleaded, to this action, in the same manner as if the suit had been originally commenced therein Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U.S. 523, 525, 15 Sup.Ct. 559, 39 L.Ed. 517; Railway Co. v. Brow, 164 U.S. 271, 17 Sup.Ct. 126, 41 L.Ed. 431.
The question presented by the motion to abate the attachment in this cause is whether moneys paid into court pending litigation in regard thereto, and placed by order of the court in its registry or some other designated depository pursuant to law, are the subject of attachment emanating from another court. This question is one of importance, as it not only affects the orderly administration of justice in the several courts, but goes further, and tends, as in this case, to thwart and annul the carrying out of the court's judgment, in a case fully litigated, with the parties in interest all before it. Money paid into the registry of the court, pursuant to law, can only be withdrawn therefrom, by the very terms of the act of congress providing for the deposit, 'by the order of the judge, or the judges of said court, respectively, to be signed by such judge, or judges, and to be entered and certified of record by the clerk. ' When a court causes funds to be so placed in its registry, they are to the credit of the court itself, there placed and held, to the end that its decrees and orders in respect thereto may be obeyed and carried out in accordance with its judgment rendered; and no court, other than one having a supervisory power over the acts of such court, can be any act of its own, or any decree, order or process emanating from it, except with its leave, assert any claim to, or secure any right in or lien upon, such funds, so long as the same remain under its control. To entertain a contrary doctrine to this would not only work untold mischief and delay in legal proceedings, but would result in innumerably conflicts between the courts themselves; and the consequence would be that funds once paid into court, with a view of having the rights...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lucas v. Lamb
...over the subject matter involved in the case at bar. Gregory v. Bank, 50 N.E. 520; In re Antigo Screen Door Co., 123 F. 249; Carbitt v. Bank, 114 F. 602; Barry v. Rood, 209 Mo. 662; State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 209 Mo. 161; State ex rel. v. Foard, 268 Mo. 300; State ex rel. v. Landis, 173 Mo.......
-
Gibbons v. Ellis
...of the court first obtained, as though it had always remained in the personal custody of the court's immediate officials.' In Corbitt v. Farmers' Bank et al., supra, a similar to attach funds deposited by court order was disposed of in the following language: 'The question presented by the ......
-
First Nat. Bank of Cripple Creek v. Londonderry Min. Co.
... ... to disturb these funds. Corbitt v. Farmers' Bank et al ... (C. C.) 114 F. 602; Jones v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 76 F ... 683, 22 ... ...
-
Security State Bank of Havre v. McIntyre
...of court, to abide final determination as to its ownership, is in the custody of the law. Mattingly v. Grimes, 48 Md. 102; Corbitt v. Farmers' Bank (C. C.) 114 F. 602. that we may dismiss from further consideration the claim that Mrs. McIntyre retained the money paid into court by Wheeler, ......