Eaton v. Cleveland, St. L. & K.C. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 February 1890
• Citation: 41 F. 421
• Parties: EATON v. CLEVELAND, ST. L. & K. C. RY. CO. et al. SHROP v. SAME.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

41 F. 421

EATON v. CLEVELAND, ST. L. & K. C. RY. CO. et al.

SHROP v. SAME.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

February 21, 1890

Taylor & Pollard, for Eaton.

Cantwell & Edwards, for Shrop.

Hiram J. Grover, for defendant Railroad.

THAYER J.

In these cases motions for a temporary stay of execution on the judgments have been filed. When the motions were argued counsel strenuously contended that the court had no power to grant a temporary stay of execution, and that it would be a clear violation of the rights of the judgment creditors to withhold execution, even for a short period. A cursory examination of that question satisfies me, however, that all courts of common law have power to temporarily stay executions on judgments by them rendered, whenever it is necessary to accomplish the ends of justice. In Sawin v Bank, 2 R.I. 383, the court said:

'We are satisfied that the court has an entire control over its process, and that it is in the discretion of the court to grant or stay the execution in each particular case, according to the circumstances. But this discretion must be judicially exercised,' etc.

In that case it was held that an execution ought to be stayed when it appeared that the owner of a judgment against two partners, by collusion with one of them, intended to levy it on the property of one partner, contrary to equities existing between them. In Robinson v. Yon, 8 Fla. 355, the court said:

'Courts of law have full power to revoke, correct, restrain, or quash their own process, in the course of their own ordinary jurisdiction.'

In Steere v. Stafford, 12 R.I. 131, A. recovered a judgment against B., and, A. being insolvent, the court ordered a stay of execution on the judgment against B., until the decision of a suit then pending, brought by B. against A., basing its right to do so on its common-law powers to stay its own process, when it seemed equitable to do so. In Com. v. Magee, 49 Amer.Dec. 509, and 8 Pa.St. 240, it was held that a judge had power in vacation to make an order staying an execution, and that such order was binding on the sheriff. In Knox v. Hexter, 42 N.Y.Super.Ct. 496, a stay of execution was ordered until the termination of a suit brought by the judgment debtor against the judgment creditor, to enable the judgment debtor to offset any recovery had in the pending suit. In the case of Phillips v. Evans, 64 Mo. 24, where a levy had been made under an execution on a part of a lot, the whole of which was covered by a building, it was said that courts ought not to permit their final process to be abused in that manner, but should stay the execution of such process. Mr. Freeman, in his work on Executions, in section 32 says:

'The power of courts to temporarily stay the issuing of execution is exercised in an almost infinite variety of circumstances, in order that the ends of justice may be accomplished. In many cases this power operates almost as a substitute for proceedings in equity, and enables the defendant to prevent any inequitable use of the judgment or writ.'

And the note to the case of Com. v. Magee, 49 Amer.Dec 513-516, shows numerous cases and a variety of circumstances under which the power has been exercised. While the power to temporarily stay execution on its judgments resides in every court, it must be conceded that it is a power that ought to be cautiously...