Freeman v. Howe

THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts within and for the county of Middlesex, by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the Judiciary act.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Parker for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Hutchins for the defendants.

The counsel on both sides appeared to consider that the whole proceedings of the State court were open to revision by this court, and therefore discussed many points relating to the validity of the mortgage, attachment, &c. Their notice of the clashing of jurisdiction by the two sets of courts was as follows. The counsel for the plaintiff in error said:

1. Persons and property 'in the custody of the law' of a State are withdrawn from the process of the courts of the United States, (unless Congress have otherwise specially enacted;) and in like manner, persons and property 'in the custody of the law' of the United States are not subject to any State process.

The Oliver Jordan, 2 Curtis's C. C. Rep., 414.

Taylor v. the Royal Saxon, 1 Wallace Jr., 311.

Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curtis's C. C. R., 465, 469.

Ex parte Robinson, 6 McLean, 355.

2. An attempt was early made to draw a distinction in favor of the United States in matters of admiralty jurisdiction.

Certain logs of Mahogany, 2 Sumner, 589.

This was on the ground of the peculiar character of the admiralty jurisdiction, and that it was vested under the Constitution solely in the United States, to the exclusion of State courts.

But even in admiralty matters, the earlier doctrine has been definitely overruled by the Supreme Court of the United States, in order to maintain the general doctrine now laid down.

Taylor v. Carryl, 20 Howard, 597.

Sustaining the judgment of the courts below in the same matter, 12 Harris's Pennsylvania R., 264.

Chief Justice TANEY and several of the judges dissented in the above case (20 Howard) from the judgment and opinion of the court, but did so solely on the ground of a necessity growing out of the peculiar character of the admiralty jurisdiction under the Constitution of the United States.

Chief Justice TANEY takes care to enforce the general doctrine more strongly, if possible, than it was stated in the opinion of the court. (Pp. 604-5.)

With respect to this case, the counsel for the defendant in error said:The case of Taylor et al v. Carryl, 20 How., 538, is not in point. The opinion of the majority of the court in that case proceeded upon the ground that the process from the State court and that from the United States court were both proceedings in rem, and of course that which was prior in time had precedence, and the property could not be taken from the possession of the State court, because possession of the property was essential to its jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.