Pike v. Wassell

Citation24 L.Ed. 307,94 U.S. 711
PartiesPIKE v. WASSELL
Decision Date01 October 1876
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Mr. Luther H. Pike for the appellants.

Mr. William M. Randolph for the appellees.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

In Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U. S. 207, 208, we decided that after a seizure and an adjudicated condemnation and sale, under the Confiscation Act of July 17, 1862, 12 Stat. 589, of the lands of one engaged in rebellion against the United States, there was 'left in him no estate or interest of any description which he could convey by deed, and no power which he could exercise i favor of another.' We also held, p. 213, that the joint resolution passed contemporaneously with the approval of the act, 12 Stat. 627, was 'intended for the benefit of his heirs exclusively, to enable them to take the inheritance after his death.' As to him, the forfeiture was complete and absolute; but the ownership, after his death, was in no wise affected, p. 209, except by placing it beyond his control while living.

A seizure of the property was necessary to give the court jurisdiction for its condemnation. Miller v. United States, 11 Wall. 294, 296; Pelham v. Way, 15 Wall. 201; Brown v. Kennedy, id. 597; The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 108. The proceedings in behalf of the United States were commenced by the seizure, and the decree of condemnation and sale, without any doubt, vested in the United States, or the purchaser at the sale, the interest which the person proceeded against had in the property when the seizure was made, free from all intermediate conveyances or incumbrances, whether the result of the voluntary act of the owner or the action of his creditors against him. Whatever interest he had in the property had been seized, as forfeited to the United States, and placed, pending the suit, beyond his reach, or that of his creditors. All subsequently acquired rights were subject to the prior claim of the United States, if perfected by a decree of condemnation.

In this case, it appears that the United States seized lot 10, nine feet off the east side of lot 9, and two and one-half feet off the west side of lot 11, in block 1, west of the Quawpaw line, and the undivided half of the west half of lots 1, 2, and 3, in block 81, Feb. 16; and on the next day filed their libel of information against this property in the District Court. A warrant of arrest and monition was issued on the next day, and duly served. The lots thus proceeded against were not levied upon under the attachment issued out of the Pulaski Circuit Court until March 9. Consequently, as to this property the attachment was defeated by the decree of condemnation, and the defendants acquired no title through the proceedings in the State court. All the interest they have in it comes through the confiscation sale, and terminates upon the death of Albert Pike, to whom it belonged when seized.

But as to the remainder of the property, there never was any seizure by the United States; and the amendment to the libel, upon which alone the decree of condemnation rests, was made long after the levy of the attachments. When levied upon, therefore, the property was open to attachment; and the subsequent condemnation, without a previous seizure, did not divest the attaching creditors of any rights acquired by their proceedings. As to them, the court had no jurisdiction, because it had never taken the property, and had never issued its warrant of arrest or monition. The affirmance of the decree under the writ of error to the Circuit Court, prosecuted by Albert Pike, operated only upon him. The creditors were no more a party to the proceedings in error than they had been to the original suit.

The appearance of Albert Pike to the attachment suits did not, under the law of Arkansas, discharge the lien of the attachment. No bond was given, such as was required for that purpose. Gould's Dig. c. 17, sect. 15, p. 171; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Mutual Health & Benefit Ass'n v. Cranford
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 15, 1934
  • Eurengy v. Equitable Realty Corp.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1937
    ...21 C.J. 957, sec. 93; Woolston v. Pullen, 102 Atl. 461; First Cong. Church v. Terry, 107 N.W. 305; Roach v. McKee, 265 N.W. 264; Pike v. Wassell, 94 U.S. 711; 67 C.J. 615, sec. 11; R.S. 1929, secs. 998, 2616, 2626; Bushman v. Bushman, 279 S.W. 125; Ex parte Devoy, 263 S.W. 1070; Stipp v. Ba......
  • Brown v. Nelms
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1908
  • Eurengy v. Equitable Realty Corp.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1937
    ... ... J. 957, ... sec. 93; Woolston v. Pullen, 102 A. 461; First ... Cong. Church v. Terry, 107 N.W. 305; Roach v ... McKee, 265 N.W. 264; Pike v. Wassell, 94 U.S ... 711; 67 C. J. 615, sec. 11; R. S. 1929, secs. 998, 2616, ... 2626; Bushman v. Bushman, 279 S.W. 125; Ex parte ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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