Corn Exchange Bank v. Coler

Decision Date06 January 1930
Docket NumberNo. 36,36
Citation280 U.S. 218,74 L.Ed. 378,50 S.Ct. 94
PartiesCORN EXCHANGE BANK v. COLER, Commissioner of Public Welfare of City of New York
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Spotswood D. Bowers, of New York City, for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from page 219 intentionally omitted] Messrs. J. Joseph Lilly and George P. Nicholson, both of New York City, for appellee.

[Argument of Counsel from page 220 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The commissioner of public welfare complained to the Domestic Relations Court that, while residing with them in New York City, Raffaele De Stefano abandoned his wife and infant child and absconded from the state, leaving them without means and likely, unless relieved, to become public charges. Upon the wife's supporting affidavit, two magistrates of the court issued a warrant authorizing seizure of all the absconding husband's right, title, and interest in his deposit with appellant bank and make return to the County Court. After service and demand, the bank refused to pay. Thereupon the commissioner by complaint in the City Court sought to reduce the fund to his possession. The bank moved for judgment upon the ground that the statute-basis of the warrant-failed to provide for notice, either actual or constructive, to the absconder, and could not be enforced without denying the due process of law guaranteed by both State and Federal Constitutions. It prevailed in the City Court. The Appellate Term (Coler v. Corn Exchange Bank, 132 Misc. Rep. 449, 230 N. Y. S. 86) reversed that action and directed judgment for the commissioner, and this was approved by the Court of Appeals. 250 N. Y. 136, 164 N. E. 882.

Sections 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, New York Code of Criminal Procedure, under which the original warrant issued, provide, in substance: That the commissioner of public welfare may apply to two magistrates for a warrant to seize the property of an absconding husband or father leaving wife or child likely to become charges on the public; that, upon due proof of the facts, the warrant may be issued; that the officer receiving it may seize the property wherever found within his county, and shall be vested with all the rights and title thereto which the person absconding then had; that return of all proceedings under the warrant shall be made to the next term of the County Court; that thereupon that court, upon inquiring into the circumstances of the case, may confirm or discharge the warrant and seizure; that, in the event of confirmation, the court shall from time to time direct what part of the property shall be sold, and how the proceeds shall be applied to the maintenance of spouse or children; and, on the other hand, that, if the party against whom the warrant has issued, shall return and support the spouse or children so abandoned, or give satisfactory security for such support, then the warrant shall be discharged, and the property restored.

The Court of Appeals ruled that jurisdiction of the magistrates to issue the warrant and of the County Court to enter a confirmatory judgment depend upon existence of the relation sought to be regulated; that 'the victim of the seizure may nullify the whole proceedings, including any adjudication attempted in his absence, if there is lacking the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1934
    ...for about two centuries, if not longer. The Fourteenth Amendment has not displaced the procedure of the ages. Corn Exchange Bank v. Coler, 280 U.S. 218, 50 S.Ct. 94, 74 L.Ed. 378; Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U.S. 94, 41 S.Ct. 433, 65 L.Ed. 837, 17 A.L.R. 873; Twining v. New Jersey, supra, at page......
  • Bonner v. Coughlin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • June 2, 1975
    ...41 S.Ct. 214, 65 L.Ed. 403 (1921) (seizure of property under Trading with the Enemy Act); Corn Exchange Bank v. Coler (Commissioner of Public Welfare), 280 U.S. 218, 50 S.Ct. 94, 74 L.Ed. 378 (1930) (seizure of assets of an absconding husband); Phillips v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ......
  • Parratt v. Taylor
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1981
    ...providing a hearing to landlords before the order or regulation fixing rents became effective. See also Corn Exchange Bank v. Coler, 280 U.S. 218, 50 S.Ct. 94, 74 L.Ed. 378 (1930); McKay v. McInnes, 279 U.S. 820, 49 S.Ct. 344, 73 L.Ed. 975 (1929); Coffin Brothers & Co. v. Bennett, 277 U.S. ......
  • Bonner v. Coughlin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • November 18, 1976
    ...254 U.S. 554, 41 S.Ct. 214, 65 L.Ed. 403 (1921) (seizure of property under Trading with the Enemy Act); Corn Exchange Bank v. Coler, 280 U.S. 218, 50 S.Ct. 94, 74 L.Ed. 378 (1930) (seizure of assets of an absconding husband); Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 51 S.Ct. 608, 75 L.Ed. 12......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 15
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Zalma on Property and Casualty Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...not affirmative, and it carries no mandate for particular measures of reform.” Id., at 110-112. See also Corn Exchange Bank v. Coler, 280 U.S. 218, 222-223 (1930). By the time the Court decided Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934), its understanding of due process had shifted in a su......

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