McGriff v. Baldwin

23 F. 222, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 1902

• Court: U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia
• Decided: January 23, 1885
• Status: Published

Opinion

Settle, J., {orally.)

I could find support for the conclusion I have reached in this case in the rule adopted by this court in reference to the remedy known in the state laws as “an affidavit of illegality,” this being a mode by which a defendant in an execution may set up grounds showing that an execution has issued or is proceeding illegally. Code, § 3G64. The rule referred to is the forty-third rule of this court, and is as follows: “In cases of illegality, the marshal shall observe the rules applicable to sheriffs in like cases.” It is conceded that the sheriff in a “like case” would be bound to accept an affidavit of illegality, and arrest the sale under the execution. Code, § 4215. Bub I do not think it necessary to place the decision upon this ground. The following considerations have most weight with me in leading to the conclusion reached, which is to refuse the motion to dismiss the paper filed as an affidavit of illegality.

Here is a writing, by whatever name it be called, by which it is shown to the court of equity that its own decree and process, issued upon its decree, are about to be abused, and injustice is about to result. The property of certain remainder-men, whose interest has now vested, and of a third party who claims under a paramount title, is about to be sold, as alleged, under an execution against the estate of a life-tenant in the said property, who was dead when the decree was issued, and whose estate perished with her death. Whether this pleading now before the court be treated as an affidavit of illegality, or as a motion supported by that affidavit, which is my inclination, I am satisfied that the court has such power over its own decree and its own process as to suspend the enforcement thereof until a hearing can be had on the case made. If the information that its process was about to be abused-was brought to the knowledge of the court by its own officer, I am not sure but that it would even then be the right and duty of the court to check that abuse, and prevent injustice, ex suo mero motu.

It is said that the only remedy in a case like this is the bill of re-view. I do not think so. The supreme court have virtually held that in matters of this character the form of the proceeding is less important than the substance of the right; and that in some instances mere motions, supported by affidavit, are the most appropriate modes of relief. Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276; S. C. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27. If there were no remedy in a case of this kind, nor alleged to exist, it would be the right and duty of the court to frame one.