United States v. Legg
Citation | 157 F.2d 990 |
Decision Date | 11 November 1946 |
Docket Number | No. 5511.,5511. |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. LEGG. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
A. Garnett Thompson, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Charleston, W. Va., and James E. Palmer, Jr., Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. ( , for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Before PARKER, SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
On December 15, 1930, an order was entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in the criminal case of United States v. Porter, forfeiting the appearance bond of Porter, on which the instant appellee, Legg, was surety, Porter having failed to appear in answer to the indictment. Scire facias was awarded against both Porter and Legg but was executed only against Legg. On May 16, 1931, Porter having still failed to appear in spite of the issuance of two writs of capias, judgment on the bond was entered against Legg for $1,000, with interest from that date.
On May 21, 1946 (15 years after judgment against him on the bond) Legg filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, praying a remission of the judgment on the bond. On that same day, the District Court granted the remission upon the condition that Legg pay $100 to the Clerk of the Court. Legg duly made this payment. The United States objected to both the filing of the petition and the granting of the relief prayed for therein. From the judgment of remission in the court below, the United States has duly appealed.
Unquestionably there were equities here which favored Legg. Immediately after the forfeiture of the appearance bond, Legg, at considerable trouble and expense, procured the arrest of Porter in Ohio. Thereupon, the Ohio authorities requested a waiver of the federal capias in order that Porter might be tried in Ohio on a state charge more serious than the federal charge against him. This request was granted and thereafter, on April 30, 1932, a nolle prosse was entered on the federal charge.
The appeal here is grounded solely on the question of the power of the District Court to enter the judgment of remission. To that question, one of considerable practical importance, we now address ourselves.
Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure went into effect on March 21, 1946, the power of the federal courts to remit judgments on forfeited appearance bonds stemmed from, and only from, Revised Statutes § 1020, 18 U.S.C.A. § 601. Under this statute, the first, and an essential, requisite for remission was a showing of non-willfulness of the principal's default. This was true, even though the surety had made herculean (but unsuccessful) efforts to secure the principal's appearance. Continental Casualty Co. v. United States, 314 U.S. 527, 62 S.Ct. 393, 86 L.Ed. 426; United States v. Hickman, 7 Cir., 155 F.2d 897; United States v. Reed, 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 808; United States v. Nordenholz, 4 Cir., 95 F.2d 756; Henry v. United States, 7 Cir., 288 F. 843, 32 A.L.R. 257.
It thus follows that prior to the effective date of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, March 21, 1946, the District Court, acting under the old statute, utterly lacked power to enter the judgment of remission in the instant case. For there was presented to the court no evidence whatever to show the lack of willfulness in the default of the principal, Porter. In support of the authorities cited in the preceding paragraph, we might also cite the Committee's note 2 to Rule 46(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Accordingly, the District Court's power to enter this judgment of remission exists if, and only if, such power can be derived from the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
We set out in full Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 46 (Bail), subdivision (f) (Forfeiture):
It will clearly be seen that under (2) (Setting Aside), the court, without any showing (as was required under the old statute) of lack of willfulness on the part of the principal on the bond, may now set aside the forfeiture "upon such conditions as the court may impose, if it appears that justice does not require the enforcement of the forfeiture." This is, of course, a great liberalization, in favor of the obligors on the bond, of the old requirement. But, we find under (3) (Enforcement), the procedure for enforcement of the bond is also greatly liberalized against the obligors. And the Committee's note on this reads:
We think that subdivisions (f) (2) and (f) (3) should be read together. In other words, the added power of the court to remit under (f) (2) applies, and applies only, to judgments against obligors on these bonds, when the judgment is obtained under the new and simpler procedure prescribed by (f) (3). If the judgment was obtained under the old procedure, then, also, the old law of remission obtains, under which there can be no remission unless the default of the principal was devoid of willfulness. Under this view, (f) (2) and (f) (3) are correlated and balance each other. The obligors secure under (f) (2) added power of the court to remit; the Government obtains a simpler and easier procedure for securing judgment on the bond. Thus the two subdivisions are compensatory and part of an integral scheme. It would then seem to follow, as in the instant case, that when the Government was compelled to resort to the old procedure to secure judgment, then that judgment can be remitted only according to the old provision as to remission — i.e., solely upon the lack of willfulness in the principal's default.
This difference between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fourth Corner Credit Union v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Kan. City
...Garner, The Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation 60 (2016) (defining indefinite adjectives); see also United States v. Legg , 157 F.2d 990, 992 (4th Cir. 1946) (recognizing that "all" can constitute an indefinite adjective); Clapp v. Heiner , 51 F.2d 224, 226 (3d Cir. 1931) (sam......
-
State v. End
...Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed., 1947) p. 2518. See, 'Such,' 40 Words and Phrases, Perm. Ed., 557; United States v. Legg, 4 Cir., 157 F.2d 990, 992. 'The term 'offence,' in criminal law, is not identical in meaning with the word 'act.' It imports, in its legal sense, an infra......
-
Federal Trade Commission v. Tuttle
...relating to any matter under investigation." The word "`such' is a rather slippery word" as Judge Dobie remarked in United States v. Legg, 4 Cir., 157 F.2d 990, 992. Some of its many meanings, depending upon its context, are discussed in 83 C.J.S. p. 771. As a rule it is used to refer to an......
-
Fjords North, Inc. v. Hahn
...Estate, 187 N.W.2d 741, 744 (Iowa 1971) ("The word `such' ordinarily refers back to the last antecedent." (citing United States v. Legg, 157 F.2d 990, 992 (4th Cir.1946); In re Wallace's Estate, 98 Cal.App.2d 285, 219 P.2d 910 (1950))); McArtor v. State, 699 P.2d 288, 290 (Wyo. 1985) ("The ......