United States v. Gamble

• Decision Date: 31 March 1847
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. GAMBLE & BATES, GARNISHEES, &C.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

10 Mo. 457

UNITED STATES

v.GAMBLE & BATES, GARNISHEES, &C.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1847.

ERROR TO ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.

GANTT, for Plaintiff

1. That the judgment on which the suit against Holliday was brought, merged the offense for which he was originally indicted, and debt lies on the judgment against Holliday, ex contractu. United States v. Dodge, 14 Johns. 95; act of Congress 24th September, 1789, ch. 20, § 11; United States v. Wolf, Addison's R. 312; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat.; 1 Chitty's Pl. 126, 127, 403, 404. And that the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States, in civil actions, in which the United States are plaintiffs, is, in cases not excepted by the letter or spirit of the Judiciary act (1 Story's Laws U. S., 57 and following), concurrent with that of the courts of the United States.

2. It may be conceded, without damage to the case of plaintiff in error, that the courts of New York and Kentucky (United States v. Lathrop, 17 Johns. 4; 1 Dana, 442) correctly laid down the law in the cases cited, the case at bar being entirely clear of the principle of those decisions. If debt on a bond for the payment of duties can be entertained by a State court, as seems to be conceded, (1 Kent's Com. 401; United States v. Dodge, 14 Johns. 95; United States v. Lathrop, 17 Johns. 4) debt will also lie on a judgment for those duties or the penalty for not paying them, and a State court will hold cognizance of the cause by parity of reason.

3. That to refuse jurisdiction in such a case as that at bar, would be to deny all remedy to the United States, and put them in a worse condition than any foreign power, or any foreign or domestic corporation. The Nabob of the Carnatic v. East India Company, 1 Ves. jr. 371; 10 Mass. 91; 5 Cowen, 550; King of Spain v. Oliver, Peters' C. C. R. U. S. 276; St. Louis Perpetual Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 9 Mo. R. 421.

4. The fact that the present action could not have been commenced to any purpose in the United States courts, by reason of defendant's non-residence in Missouri (12 Peters, 300; 15 Peters, 169, 171; 1 Story's Laws U. S. 57, § 11) furnishes a strong reason why the State court should hold cognizance of it. 1 Chitty's Pl. 479; 6 East, 600; 5 Mass. 362; 3 Mass. 24.

5. There is no necessity for a bill of exceptions showing that the plaintiffs in error excepted to the ruling of the court below, because, First. The objections to the jurisdiction of the court, made by the garnishees and by them signed, are, to all intents and purposes, a plea in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court; and this, in form as well as substance, so far as the position of the garnishees on the record allowed, and the judgment of the court is, as if given on demurrer to the plea in abatement, in which case no bill of exceptions is necessary. Second. This court has decided expressly that the “Supreme Court will take notice of and review the erroneous final judgment of an inferior court, although no motion was made to set aside such judgment, and although no exception was taken to it.” Carr & Co. v. Edwards, 1 Mo. R. 137, quoted in West v. Miles, 9 Mo. R. 167, where the same principle is decided.

6. That the jurisdiction of the State court does not depend on the question whether or not the process of the United States court could reach the defendant, nor is it to be concluded that, if not, then the State court cannot have jurisdiction, since a State court can at most have concurrent jurisdiction with the United States courts, &c. But that it is to be tested by the inquiry whether the United States court has jurisdiction over the matter and the person, supposing them both before the court by legal process.

7. That though one government will not enforce the penal laws of another, nor take notice of the political consequence of its judgments, yet the pecuniary fine imposed by a government becomes a debt which can be enforced elsewhere. And that this is especially the case where the United States asks the aid of the State courts of one of the members of the Federal Union. Josh. Ward, Assignee, &c. v. Nehemiah Mann et al., decided March term, 1846, of Superior Judicial Court of Massachusetts. See Law Reporter, No. --

8. That the discretion of the court below in holding cognizance of this cause is not an arbitrary thing, to be wantonly exercised or capriciously denied, but that it is governed by the strictest considerations of the duty to which a tribunal for the enforcement of rights and redress of wrong is subject, from its constitution and nature. Art. 7, of Declaration of Rights of the people of the State of Missouri.

BATES, for Defendants.

1. A civil action of debt cannot be maintained upon a criminal sentence. Debt on judgment is classed with actions on contract and is based on an implied agreement to pay, &c. Blacks. Com.; 1 Chitty's Pl. 103-4, 126-7; 2 Selw. N. P. 530, and see the forms and notes thereon; 2 Chitty's Pl. 482, &c. These according to Lord Coke, are the lock and key of the common law. If debt can be brought for the money--part of the punishment--why not debt in the detinet, for lashes or imprisonment?

2. But if such action be legally possible, it cannot be maintained by the United States; because, the United States cannot sue except in its own courts. See the Constitution. And, 12 Peters, 657, Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, wherein it is declared to be the duty of the Federal judiciary to decide all cases arising under the Constitution and laws. And again, Congress cannot vest any portion of the judicial power, except in courts ordained and established by itself. Martin v. Hunter's Lessees, 1 Wheat. 304 (3 Cond. R. 578); 1 Kent's Com. 395. Although a foreign prince or nation, being a person in law, may, from necessity, bring an action in our courts, still, the United States within the limits of its own jurisdiction, cannot. The United States government is a system perfect in itself, with means and machinery within its own borders, to maintain all its rights and enforce all its remedies. It cannot bur den the State courts with its business, nor subject itself to the jealousy and conflict which would arise from such practice. Our courts cannot give a judgment even for costs against the United States. Its own courts cannot. 8 Peters, 163, United States v. Ringgold.

3. But this is a proceeding to enforce the criminal law of the United States, which cannot be done in the State courts. See Judiciary act, § 11; 1 Story's Laws, 57; 1 Kent's Com. 395 to 404, new ed., and cases there cited; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 (3 Cond. R....