McGoon v. Scales/Opinion of the Court

The shortest and most satisfactory mode of showing the reasons for our judgment is to examine the title of defendant, which the jury were told was the true one.

If the attachment proceedings conveyed a good title, it must prevail; and we proceed to an examination of some of the objections to it.

1. It is claimed that the land was sold for State taxes in April, 1849, and that the title under that sale became vested in plaintiff.

The answer to this is, that the land was then owned by the United States and was not subject to State taxation, the sale to Gear having been made in 1851, and the patent issued in 1852.

2. It is claimed that at the time the attachment in favor of Corwith was levied on these lands, in his suit against the State Bank of Illinois, they were not subject to attachment and sale for the debts of that institution.

In establishing this proposition it is first asserted that the legal title never vested in the bank.

The deed from Gear to Campbell, in our judgment, did vest the legal title in the bank after the act of 1850. It is a principle too firmly established to admit of dispute at this day, that to the law of the State in which land is situated must we look for the rules which govern its descent, alienation, and transfer, and for the effect and construction of conveyances.

The effect of the statute of Wisconsin, passed in 1850, was to abolish all passive trusts in which the trustee held a mere naked or dry trust for the use of the cestui que trust, and to vest the title in the beneficiary. And the only question to be decided in this connection is whether the deed of Gear to Campbell is of this character.

The bank buys the land of Gear of fifty thousand dollars, the amount of its debt against Gear, which is thereby satisfied. Campbell does not sign the deed or accept the trust otherwise than by silence. If the land is not sold, he holds the naked legal title to the use of the bank and its assigns. The only possible event in which he may be called into action is on a sale of the land. It is equally clear, that in this sale the only part to be performed by him was to make conveyance. He is to sell for such sum or sums as shall be directed by the president, directors, &c., of the bank, and they are to receive the proceeds of sale. In other words, they find a purchaser at such price as they may be willing to take, they receive the purchase-money, and Mr. Campbell makes a conveyance. It is difficult to conceive of a more passive trust, or one in which the trustee may be called upon to do less than in this.

A case decided recently by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is produced to us in manuscript, and much relied on as holding views adverse to those above stated. But we think it supports them. That court says, that 'by the statute of uses and trusts passive trusts are abolished. By passive trusts we mean those which are express, or created by the words of some deed or other instrument of writing, and not those arising or resulting by implication of law. Every express passive trust is abolished, and the deed or instrument by which it is created, or attempted to be, takes effect as a conveyance directly to the cestui que trust in whom the legal title vests, and the trustee acquires no estate or interest whatever. A conveyance of land from A. to B. to the use of or in trust for C., the trustee having no active duties to perform, constitutes a passive trust.'

We think this is a sound construction of the statute, and that the deed to Campbell comes within it. In the case before the Wisconsin court the trustee was directed to bargain, sell, and convey, to lease, demise, and mortgage the lands as he might be directed by the cestui que trust, and to pay over to her all the moneys arising from said property, whether from rents, sale, or mortgage, and take her written receipt therefor, and to reinvest the same from time to time as she should in writing direct.

There can be no doubt that this trust was an active one, and as little that the one before us was not.

But if this were otherwise, a statute of Wisconsin in force when the land was sold under Corwith's judgment declares, that 'lands, tenements, and real estate holden by any one in trust for another, shall be liable to debts, judgments, decrees, executions, and attachments against the person to whose use they are holden.' So that if the trust in Campbell was a valid one, these lands were still liable to be sold on execution for the debt of the bank. Nor can it be doubted that such a sale, when lawful in all other respects, and completed by the conveyance of the sheriff, vested in the grantee the legal title to the land.

But it is said, secondly, that conceding the title to have been vested in the bank, that corporation had made a conveyance of the lands, before Corwith's proceedings were instituted, to Manly, Calhoun, and Ridgely, for the benefit of the creditors of the bank and for the payment of its debts.

There is no question that such a deed was made, nor is it denied that a valid deed of assignment, for the benefit of creditors, generally places the property so assigned beyond the reach of the ordinary process of attachment or execution directed against the property of the assignor.

But the deed in question was a peculiar deed, and made under very peculiar circumstances.

Under the circumstances, it cannot be doubted that the effect of this conveyance is to be measured by the terms of the act, and that if any of its provisions are in conflict with that act they must to that extent give way. Now, the very last section of that act, after the previous sections, and, indeed, previous statutes had fully defined the duties and powers of these trustees, declares expressly that 'the real estate of said bank shall be liable to taxation and sale on execution in the same manner as the property of individuals.' So far, then, as this conveyance by the bank to the trustees affected the liability of these lands to judicial sale for the debts of the bank, it left them in precisely the same condition they were before, and this whether the deed to Campbell is to be construed as a passive or an active trust, and the title of the bank under it a legal or an equitable one.

It must, therefore, be taken as established that the land in question was liable to be subjected to judicial sale for the debts of the bank, and the only remaining question concerns the validity of the proceeding under which this was attempted.

Most of the objections urged under this head relate to the regularity of those proceedings, and many errors are pointed out which are supposed to affect the title acquired under them. But the doctrine of this court, and of all the courts of this country, is firmly established, that if the court in which the proceedings took place had jurisdiction to render the judgment which it did, no error in its proceedings which did not affect the jurisdiction will render the proceeding void; nor can such errors be considered when the judgment is brought collaterally into question. With this cardinal principle in mind many of the alleged errors in the proceeding under the attachment must be disregarded.

There can be no question of the right of the legislature of Wisconsin to pass such laws as will subject property within her territory, held or owned by non-residents, to the payment of the debts of such owners; and the manner of doing this is also entirely within legislative control, provided it does not violate some of the provisions of the Federal or State constitutions.

The court in which these proceedings were had was a court of general jurisdiction, and had undoubted authority to attach the property of the bank for the payment of its debts, and every presumption must be made in favor of the validity of its proceeding not inconsistent with the record.

We will, however, notice a few of the alleged errors which are supported to touch the point of the court's jurisdiction.

1. It is said that the bank was dead in law, and that as the suit was instituted against the bank by name, no jurisdiction was acquired.

It is by no means certain that the bank had no capacity to sustain a suit, notwithstanding the expiration of its charter and the transfer of its property to trustees. But, however this may be, those very trustees, in whom plaintiff claims that the title was vested, and from whom he derives title by deed, appeared to this suit and moved to dissolve the attachment, and the bank appeared by attorney and defended the suit. Both must then be bound by these proceedings, and neither can deny a jurisdiction to which they voluntarily submitted.

2. The legislature of Wisconsin had made provision by special statute for a case in which a bank, whose functions had ceased, but which yet owned property and owed debts in Wisconsin, might be sued and the property subjected to the payment of those debts. The constitutionality of this act is denied; but no provision of the constitution of Wisconsin or of the United States is pointed out which is opposed to such legislation. It would, on the contrary, be a strange defect in the legislative power if, under such circumstances, a State could not frame laws which would enable her citizens to subject the lands of a corporation whose charter had expired to the debts which it owed to her citizens.

3. It is said that the judgment under which this sale was made was reversed, and this is true.

But the sale was made while the judgment was in force to one who was no party to the suit, and the reversal of the judgment could not, as is well settled, affect the purchaser.

4. It is said the sale was void because made under an execution which had no seal.

The court from which the execution issued permitted it to be amended after sale by affixing a seal. Whether the sale would have been void without the seal, and whether the amendment was rightfully made, were questions of Wisconsin law, and this and all other such questions were decided in favor of the sale by the Wisconsin court on motion to set aside the sale. That decision must control us as to all that concerns the regularity of these proceedings.

As we have examined all that can be said to affect the jurisdiction of the court and the authority of the officer to make the sale, we need inquire no further.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.