Watson v. Bondurant , 22 L. Ed. 509 ( 1874 )

88 U.S. 123 (____) 21 Wall. 123

WATSON
v.
BONDURANT.

Supreme Court of United States.

Messrs. G.W. Race and E.T. Merrick, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. C.L. Walker, contra.

Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

Without adverting to the other questions raised by the defendant, we are of opinion that the court erred in declining to allow the objection as to the want of seizure under the execution. The law of Louisiana seems to us very clearly to require an actual seizure in the country parishes. The parishes of Orleans and Jefferson are an exception, and that very exception makes the existence of the rule in other parishes more clear and distinct. The act of 1857 declares that in the parishes of Jefferson and Orleans "the registry in the mortgage office shall be deemed and considered as the seizure and possession by the sheriff of the property therein described, and it shall be unnecessary to appoint a keeper thereof." This act is itself constructive of the force and effect of the general law. That law (Code of Practice, Article 642) prescribes the form of the writ of fieri facias, which must command the sheriff to seize the property of the debtor. Article 643 declares that "as soon as the sheriff has received this writ he must execute it without delay by seizing the property of the debtor." The code then goes on to direct the sheriff as to further proceeding. He must give notice to the debtor to appoint an appraiser, &c. Article 656 declares that "when the sheriff seizes houses or lands he must take at the same time all the rents, issues, and revenue which this property may yield." Article 657 says, if it be land or a plantation which he has taken, unless the same be leased or rented, it shall remain sequestered in his custody until sale. "Consequently," says the law, "he may appoint a keeper or an overseer to manage it, for whom he shall be responsible." Article 659 declares that when the objects seized consist of money, movables, or beasts, he shall put them in a place of safety, &c. Article 690 declares that the adjudication thus made has, of itself alone, the effect of transferring to the purchaser all the rights and claims which the party in whose hands it was seized might have had to the thing adjudged.

Other sections are equally suggestive on this point.

The courts of Louisiana hold the seizure to be essential, and that a sale without it fails to transfer title to the purchaser.

In the case of Goubeau v. New Orleans and Nashville Railroad Company,^[*] it was held that in order to make a legal and valid seizure of tangible property from which the seizing creditor may acquire a privilege in the thing seized, it is necessary that the sheriff should take the object seized into his possession; and the mere levying of an execution upon property found in the hands of the debtor, or of a third person, without showing that the sheriff took it into his actual possession, at least when he levied the writ, is not sufficient to confer any right on the creditor. This doctrine is affirmed in Simpson v. Allain,^[†] in Fluker v. Bullard,^[‡] Offut v. Monquit,^[§] Taylor v. Stone,^[†] Gaines v. Merchants' Bank.^[¶]

The cases here referred to are mostly cases of personal chattels, or securities. But the same doctrine has been held in regard to lands. In the recent case of Corse v. Stafford,^[**] which was a petitory suit to recover a tract of land and plantation claimed by the plaintiff under a sheriff's sale, it was held that the sale was void because no actual seizure had been made. It appeared in that case, that the sheriff did no more than go on the plantation, read the writ to the parties, and give them notice of seizure, without doing anything else to indicate a seizure. The court said: "Under the sheriff's sale, we think, the plaintiff did not acquire title, because it was never taken into the possession of the sheriff, and, therefore, that he cannot maintain his petitory action. It has frequently been decided that a sheriff's sale, without a valid seizure, confers no title."^[‡]

The case of Corse v. Stafford, it is true, arose under an order of seizure and sale. But the same rule was held by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in 1856, in the case of Williams v. Clark,^[*] with regard to sales under fieri facias. The plaintiff in that case claimed the land in question under a sheriff's sale made by virtue of a fieri facias issued on a judgment upon an attachment; and, whilst the judgment was held void on account of a defective citation, and of the fact that the attachment was set aside, the sale was also held void, because "no valid seizure was made of the property adjudicated." "The defendant," say the court, "at the date of the constructive seizure, and ever since, has been in actual possession of the property; no attempt was made to dispossess him. The defendant cannot be held to a constructive notice of an invalid seizure. A purchaser at a sheriff's sale, made without a previous seizure, acquires nothing, at least against a third party in possession."

These are cases where the validity of the sale was assailed in a collateral proceeding. Instances are still more numerous in which actions of nullity have been sustained on the same ground.^[†]

That the person in possession should be actually turned out of possession, in order to constitute a valid seizure, is not understood to be necessary. But, under the rulings of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, it does seem to be necessary that there should be some taking of possession more than a mere constructive taking; perhaps a yielding to the sheriff's demand, and a consent to hold under him, on the part of the person in possession, is all that is required.

As this is a pure question of local law, we feel bound to follow the decisions of the highest court of Louisiana on the subject; and, according to those decisions, it seems clear that there was no valid seizure in this case.

We think, therefore, that for the failure to make any actual seizure of the land, the sale was void.

In such a case as the present the importance of actual seizure is particularly obvious. The defendant was no party to the action brought on the mortgage. He knew nothing about it. Had his lot been seized by the sheriff, as it ought to have been, his attention would have been called to it. The seizure would have been notice. He could then have protected himself.

The pact de non alienando relieved the plaintiff from the necessity of making Watson a party to his action; but it did not relieve him from the necessity of pursuing the forms of law in making a compulsory sale.

This very question arose in a recent case,^[*] in which the Supreme Court of Louisiana say:

"We concur with the plaintiff, that the insertion in the act of mortgage of the pact de non alienando does not invest the mortgage creditor with the right to disregard the forms of law in making the forced alienation of his debtor's property... . The advantage of this clause is to save the mortgage creditor the necessity of resorting to the delays of the hypothecary action. He can proceed to enforce his mortgage directly against his mortgage debtor, without reference to the transferee of that debtor. But still the transferee is subrogated to his vendor's right by virtue of the purchase, and has sufficient interest in the object of the contract of mortgage to sue to annul the sale, if the forms of law have not been complied with by the mortgage creditor of his vendor in making the forced sale."

By the same reason, and according to the cases above cited, he has the right in a collateral proceeding, to set up, by way of defence, the failure to follow those forms.

It has been suggested that the defendant could not go behind the sheriff's return to the writ of fieri facias. Had this return been duly authenticated by the sheriff's signature, as required by the code, perhaps there might have been plausibility in this objection; though under the Louisiana practice it would be very doubtful. But the return was incomplete and presents no record evidence of the sheriff's acts. We think the return under the circumstances was, at least, traversable, and that it was properly shown that no actual seizure of the property in dispute was ever made by the sheriff.

JUDGMENT REVERSED, and

A VENIRE DE NOVO AWARDED.

NOTES

[*] 6 Robinson, 348.

[†] 7 Robinson, 504.

[‡] 2 Annual, 338.

[§] Ib. 785.

[†] Ib. 910.

[¶] 4 Id. 370.

[**] 24 Louisiana Annual, 263.

[‡] 11 Annual, 761; 12 Id. 275; 19 Id. 58; 22 Id. 207; 23 Id. 512.

[*] 11 Louisiana Annual, 761.

[†] See, amongst others, cases before cited; and see Kilbourne v. Frellsen, 22 Annual, 207.

[*] Villa Palma v. Abat and Generes, 21 Annual, 11.