William M. Gwin, Late Marshal, and Jacob S. Yerger and Robert Hughes, His Sureties, in Error v. C. T. And A. Barton, in Error

Citations: 47 U.S. 7; 12 L. Ed. 321; 6 How. 7; 1848 U.S. LEXIS 290

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; December 21, 1847; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of William M. Gwin, late Marshal, and Jacob S. Yerger and Robert Hughes, his sureties, against C. T. and A. Barton, the plaintiffs sought a judgment from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi for $2,920.39. This amount was associated with a writ of venditioni exponas issued in November 1840, which Gwin failed to execute by not levying the required funds. The plaintiffs also requested interest on this sum at 30% per annum from May 1840 until payment. 

In response, the defendants filed a demurrer citing several grounds, including the lack of legal authority for the motion, absence of citizenship information for the parties, and the failure to specify breaches of duty by Gwin or damages incurred by the plaintiffs. The court overruled the demurrer, allowing Gwin and his sureties to plead. They argued that prior to this motion, there were ongoing lawsuits against them concerning Gwin's official bond for larger sums of money not paid over, which could satisfy the bond's penalty.

Plaintiffs demurred to the defendants' plea, which the court sustained, allowing the defendants to plead over; however, they declined. The court found that on November 14, 1840, a writ of venditioni exponas was issued against Crozier and others for $2,970.39, instructing the marshal to sell property to satisfy the debt. The marshal failed to levy the amount without authority, leading to the plaintiffs demanding payment from Gwin after the execution's return. Gwin had provided an official bond with Yerger and Hughes as sureties. The court ruled against Gwin, Yerger, and Hughes, awarding the plaintiffs the owed amount plus 30% annual interest from May 1, 1841, and costs.

During proceedings, the court overruled defendants' objections to the introduction of certain evidence, including Hughes' testimony, who was an attorney for the plaintiffs. Hughes stated he sought the owed money from the marshal's deputy, who claimed the property had been sold but the payment was not received. The court's judgment against Gwin and his sureties was contested by the defendants, citing errors in the overruling of their demurrer, the admission of the bond, Hughes as a witness, and the final judgment itself.

The case was a summary proceeding under Mississippi law regarding execution processes, which the U.S. courts adopted. The defendants were held jointly liable for the amount due, with the precedent set in Gwin v. Breedlove being relevant to the court's decision.

The court determined that the Mississippi statute permits a summary process against a marshal for debts, interest, and costs due to his default, as sanctioned by the act of Congress of 1828. However, it ruled that U.S. courts cannot enforce state-imposed penalties in addition to the amounts due on an execution. Furthermore, the court stated that summary actions against a marshal's sureties contravene the act of Congress from April 10, 1806. To hold the sureties accountable for the marshal's default, the plaintiff must pursue a regular action to obtain judgment per the specified legal procedures. The court found the judgment against the marshal and his sureties erroneous, noting that any judgment against the marshal alone would also fail due to an excessive interest rate awarded beyond the legal limit, which was viewed as a penalty for default. Consequently, the prior judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the Circuit Court for proceedings consistent with the court's opinion and applicable laws.