Stiles v. Davis & Barton

66 U.S. 101, 17 L. Ed. 33, 1 Black 101, 1861 U.S. LEXIS 459

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: December 23, 1861
• Status: Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice NELSON.

The case was this: The plaintiffs below, Davis and Barton, had purchased the remnants of a store of dry goods of the assignee of a firm at Janesville, Wisconsin, who had failed, and made an assignment for the benefit of their creditors. The-goods were packed in boxes, and delivered to the agents of the Union Despatch Company to be conveyed by railroad to Ilion', Herkimer county, New York.

On the arrival of the goods in Chicago, on their way to the place of destination, they were seized by the sheriff, under an .attachtííént issued in behalf of the creditors of the insolvent firm at Janesville, as the property,of that firm, aud the defendant,-one of the'proprietors and agent of the Union Despatch Company at Chicago, was summoned as garnishee. The goods, w-ere held by the sheriff, under the attachment, until judgment and execution, when they were sold. They were attached, andl the defendant summoned on the.third of November, 1857; and some days afterwards,'and before the commencement of ■ this suit,-'which was on the sixteenth of the month, the plaintiffs made a demand .on the defendant for their goods, which was refused, on. the ground he Lad been summoned as garnishee in the attachment suit.

The.court below ehai’ged the jury, that any proceedings in the State court, to which the plaintiffs were not parties, and of which they had no notice, did not bind them or their property; and further, that the fact of the goods being garnished, as the property of third persons, of itself, under the circumstances of the case, constituted no bar to the action; but said the jury-might weigh that fact in determining whether or not there was a conversion.

We think the court below erred. After the seizure of the goods by the sheriff, under the attachment, they were in the custody of the law, and the defendant could not comply with the demand of the plaintiffs without a breach of it, even admitting the goods to have been, at the time, in his actual possession. The case, however, shows that they were in the possession of the sheriff’s officer or agent, and continued there until disposed of under the judgment upon the attachment. . It is true, that these goods had been delivered to the defendant, as carriers, by the plaintiffs, to be conveyed for them to the place of destination, and were seized under an attachment against third persons; but this circumstance did not impair the legal effect of the seizure or custody of the goods under it, so as to justify the defendant in taking them out of the hands of the sheriff. The right of the sheriff to hold them was a question of law, to be determined by the proper legal proceedings, and not at the will of the defendant, nor that of the plaintiffs. The law on this subject is well settled, as may be seen on a reference to the cases collected in sections 458, 290, 350, of Drake on Attach’t, 2d edition.

This precise question was determined in Verrall vs. Robinson, (Turwhitt’s Exch. R., 1069; 4 Dowling, 242, S. C.) There the plaintiff was a coach proprietor, and the defendant the owner of a carriage depository in the city of London. One Banks hired a chaise from the plaintiff and afterwards left it at the defendant’s depository. While it remained-there, it was attached in an action against Banks; and, on that ground, the defendant refused to deliver it up to the plaintiff on demand, although he admitted it to-be his property.

Lord Abinger. O. B., observed, that the defendant’s refusal to deliver the chaise to the plaintiff was grounded on its being on his premises, in the custody of the law. That this was no evidence of a wrongful conversion to his own use. After il was attached as Banks’s property, it was not in the custody oi the defendant, in such a manner as to permit him to deliver it up at all. And Alderson, B., observed: Had the defendant delivered it, as requested, he'would have been guilty of a breach of law.

The plaintiffs hawe mistaken their remedy. They should have brought their action against the officer who seized the goods, or against the plaintiffs in the attachment suit, if the seizure was made under'their direction. As to these parties, the process being against third persons, it would have furnished no justification, if the plaintiff could have maintained a title and right to possession in themselves.

Judgment of the court below reversed, and venire de novo, fc.