Miller United States v. Nicholls
| Decision Date | 09 March 1819 |
| Citation | 4 L.Ed. 578,17 U.S. 311,4 Wheat. 311 |
| Parties | MILLER, for the use of the UNITED STATES, v. NICHOLLS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania. The case agreed in the court below, stated, that William Nicholls, collector, &c., being indebted to the United States of America, on the 9th of June 1798, executed a mortgage to Henry Miller, for the use of the United States, in the sum of $59,444, conditioned for the payment of $29,271, payable, $9757 on or before the 1st of January 1799; $9757 on or before the 9th of June 1799; and $9757 on or before the 9th of September 1799. A scire facias was issued upon the said mortgage, returnable to September term of the said supreme court of Pennsylvania, in the year 1800, and judgment thereupon entered up, in the said supreme court, on the 6th of March 1802, and thereupon, a levari facias issued, and was levied upon the property of the said William Nicholls, and the same being sold to the highest bidder, for the sum of $14,530, the same was brought into court, and is now deposited in the hands of the prothonotary of said court, subject to the orders of the same court. That, on the 22d of December 1797, the accounts of the said William Nicholls with the commonwealth of Pennsylvania were settled by the comptroller and register-general of the commonwealth. (Prout account and settlement.) That an appeal from said settlement was filed in the office of the prothonotary of the said supreme court, on the 9th day of March 1798, and judgment thereupon entered in favor of the commonwealth, against the said William Nicholls, in the said supreme court, on the 6th of September 1798, for the sum of $9987.15.
Upon the preceding statement, the following question is submitted to the consideration of the court: Whether the said settlement of the said public accounts of the said William Nicholls, as aforesaid, on the 22d of December 1797, was, and is, a lien, from the date thereof, upon the real estate of the said William Nicholls, and which has since been sold as aforesaid.
A. J. DALLAS, for the United States.
J. B. McKEAN, for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
December 2d, 1803.
The supreme court of Pennsylvania, on the 21st of March 1805, on motion of Mr. McKean, attorney-general of the said commonwealth, made a rule on the plaintiff in error, to show cause why the amount of the debt due to the said commonwealth should not be taken out of court. And on the 22d of March 1805, Alexander James Dallas, the attorney of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania, came into court and suggested, 'that the commonwealth of Pennsylvania ought not to be permitted to have and receive the money levied and produced by virtue of the execution in the suit, because the said attorney, on behalf of the United States, saith, that as well by virtue of the said execution, as of divers acts of congress, and particularly of an act of congre...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cullough v. Commonwealth of Virginia
...* * * This court has repeatedly decided in favor of its jurisdiction in such a case. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, Miller v. Nichols, 4 Wheat. 311, and Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117, are expressly in point. They establish, as far as precedents can establish anything, that it ......
-
In re Melon Street
... ... 24, 1895, P.L. 212; Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat ... 311; Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Needles, 113 U.S ... state and the constitution of the United States: Hare's ... American Constitutional Law, 357; Pumpell v. Green Bay ... ...
-
Spokane County v. United States, 164
...did not disclose the insolvency of the debtor, so as to make section 3466 applicable, and thus was eliminated the federal question. 4 Wheat. 311, 4 L. Ed. 578. No question of the construction of section 3466 seems to have come before this court again until, in Field v. United States, 9 Pet.......
-
Columbiaco v. Columbia Electriclight Power Co
...such question, the fact that it was not specially set up and claimed is not conclusive against a review of such question here. Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat. 311; Willson v. Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245; Satterlee v. Matthewson, Id. 380, 410; Fisher's Lessee v. Cockerell, 5 Pet. 248; Crowell v. Rand......