Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. Solicitor-General for plaintiff in error, submitted on his brief. No appearance for defendants in error.

Judges

Samuel M. Blatchford

See more information ...

Smart Summary

United States v. Bryant — Summary of Opinion (May 5, 1884)

Factual and Procedural Background

This action was brought by the United States in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Alabama to recover 2,740 pine logs (and the use thereof during detention). The complaint, filed August 8, 1879, described the logs, their marks, sizes, values, and when and where they were cut. Attached to the complaint was an affidavit by J.J. Gainey, a special agent of the General Land Office, sworn before a U.S. commissioner, stating that "to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief" the property sued for belonged to the United States. The court clerk issued an order for seizure based on that affidavit, directing the marshal to take the property unless the defendants gave bond in double the value.

The marshal served process on Bryant and seized 858 logs. The defendants moved to dissolve the seizure and to restore the property on the ground that the record showed "that no affidavit or bond was given by the plaintiff, as required by law in detinue suits, to authorize the seizure by the marshal of the property sued for," invoking sections 2942 and 2943 of the Alabama Code (1876). Before the motion was decided, the court, on the United States' application, ordered an ex parte sale of the logs, later stayed pending the motion.

On June 9, 1880, the Circuit Court granted the defendants' motion, dissolving the seizure and directing restoration of the property; the United States excepted. The case proceeded to trial on January 10, 1881, resulting in a jury verdict awarding the United States 500 logs (or their value), and judgment for that quantity. The United States moved to vacate the June 9, 1880 order dissolving the seizure, arguing the defendants had no other nonexempt property; that motion was denied January 13, 1881. The United States brought a writ of error to review the orders dissolving the seizure and denying vacation of that order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether an affidavit made by a special agent of the General Land Office stating, "to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief," that the property sued for belongs to the United States is sufficient under Alabama Code §§ 2942 and 2943 (statutes governing suits for recovery of personal chattels in specie and prerequisites for seizure).
Whether the United States is required, under Alabama Code §§ 2942 and 2943 (as adopted "as near as may be" under federal forms of proceeding), to give the bonds those sections require as a condition precedent to obtaining an order for seizure, or whether the United States is exempt from such bond requirements by § 1001 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.
Whether the Circuit Court erred in dissolving the order of seizure and directing restoration of the property on the grounds of affidavit insufficiency and lack of bond.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff in Error (United States)

The affidavit by J.J. Gainey, a special agent of the General Land Office, stating the logs belonged to the United States "to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief," was sufficient under the Alabama statute authorizing an affidavit by "the plaintiff, his agent or attorney," because an agent making such an affidavit commonly must swear from knowledge, information, and belief rather than positive, firsthand knowledge.
The United States is not required to give the state-prescribed bonds as a condition to obtaining an order for seizure because § 1001 of the Revised Statutes provides that the United States shall not be required to give bond, obligation, or other security when process issues from a Circuit Court by the United States.
The Circuit Court's order dissolving the seizure on grounds of affidavit insufficiency and for want of bond was therefore erroneous and should be vacated.

Defendants in Error (Bryant and Weekley)

They moved to dissolve the seizure and to have the property restored, asserting that the record showed "no affidavit or bond was given by the plaintiff, as required by law in detinue suits" (relying on Alabama Code §§ 2942 and 2943), and thereby contending the seizure was not lawfully authorized.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mitchell v. Pitts, 61 Ala. 219	Permitted affidavits by attorneys/agents to be phrased as "informed and believes" or "to the best of affiant's knowledge and belief" when an attorney or agent cannot have positive knowledge; recognized practical necessity of such form.	The Court relied on Mitchell to support the proposition that an affidavit by an agent (here, the land-office special agent) swearing "to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief" is sufficient under the Alabama statute allowing affidavits by "the plaintiff, his agent or attorney."
Bridges v. Williams, 1 Martin, N.S. 98	Held that an agent required by statute to swear to a debt must be allowed to swear "to the best of his knowledge," because that is ordinarily the only safe form for an agent to use.	The Court cited Bridges as analogous authority supporting the sufficiency of an agent's affidavit phrased in terms of knowledge and belief.
United States v. Ottman, 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 294	Applied § 1001 of the Revised Statutes to relieve the United States from giving undertakings (bonds) otherwise required by local practice when issuing attachments/process.	The Court cited Ottman to confirm that § 1001 prevents requiring the United States to give the bond required by the Alabama Code as a condition to obtaining the order for seizure.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by identifying the nature of the proceeding: this was not an attachment under § 915 of the Revised Statutes, but a suit where the forms and modes of proceeding are to conform "as near as may be" to those existing in Alabama courts under § 914. The suit was for recovery of personal chattels in specie within the meaning of Alabama Code § 2942, which authorizes seizure upon an affidavit by "the plaintiff, his agent or attorney," and the filing of a bond.

The court analyzed two interrelated legal questions:

Affidavit sufficiency: The court reasoned that the statute's allowance for an affidavit by "the plaintiff, his agent or attorney" necessarily contemplates that an agent or attorney may not have positive, firsthand knowledge of all facts and must be permitted to swear from information and belief. The court observed that the United States can act only by agents, and that a special agent of the General Land Office making an affidavit that the property belongs to the United States "to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief" is sufficient until contradicted. The court reinforced this interpretation by reference to Alabama authority (Mitchell v. Pitts) and Louisiana authority (Bridges v. Williams) illustrating the practical necessity of permitting agents to swear on knowledge and belief.
Bond requirement: The court considered whether adopting the state practice "as near as may be" would impose the Alabama bond requirements of §§ 2942–2943 upon the United States. It found that § 1001 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides that whenever any process issues from a Circuit Court by the United States, no bond, obligation, or other security shall be required from the United States either to prosecute the suit or to answer in damages or costs. The court held that adopting state practice could not abrogate § 1001, and therefore the United States was not required to give the state-prescribed bonds as a precondition to obtaining the seizure order. The court cited United States v. Ottman as authority applying § 1001 in a similar context.

Applying these principles to the record, the court concluded that (1) the agent's affidavit in the form sworn was sufficient under the applicable Alabama statute and (2) the United States was not required to give the state bond. Consequently, the Circuit Court erred in dissolving the seizure and ordering restoration of the property for the stated reasons.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court's orders dissolving the seizure and denying vacation of that dissolution. Specifically, the Court directed that the order of June 9, 1880, dissolving the order for seizure, be vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Direct consequences for the parties:

The Circuit Court's order of June 9, 1880 (dissolving the seizure and directing restoration of the seized logs) and its January 13, 1881 order denying vacation were reversed.
The case was remanded with directions to vacate the June 9, 1880 order and to take further proceedings according to law and consistent with the Supreme Court's analysis (i.e., treating the agent's affidavit as sufficient until contested and not requiring the United States to post the Alabama bonds under § 1001 of the Revised Statutes).

Broader implications:

This opinion construes (1) the practical sufficiency of an agent's affidavit phrased as to knowledge, information, and belief under a state statutory scheme applied "as near as may be" under federal procedure, and (2) the non-applicability to the United States of state bond requirements when § 1001 of the Revised Statutes forbids requiring the United States to give bond or other security. The opinion does not purport to establish any broader rule beyond its application to these statutes and the facts presented. If no broader implications are discussed in the opinion text, the immediate effect is the reversal and remand described above and there is no statement in the opinion that a new precedent beyond this interpretation was being newly established.

Source: Opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Blatchford; submitted April 15, 1884; decided May 5, 1884. Counsel: Mr. Solicitor-General for plaintiff in error (submitted on his brief); no appearance for defendants in error.

Show full summary ...

UNITED STATES v. BRYANT Another.

Action — Practice — United States. Under §§ 2942 and 2943 of the Code of Alabama, of 1876, which provide for the bringing of a suit for the recovery of personal chattels in specie, and for the making of an affidavit by "the plaintiff, his agent or attorney," that the property sued for belongs to the plaintiff, and for the giving by the plaintiff of a bond for costs and damages, as prerequisites to the making of an order for the seizure of the property, an affidavit, in such a suit by the United States, in the Circuit Court of the United States, made by a special agent of the General Land Office, in which he swears, "to the best of his knowledge, information and belief," that the property sued for belongs to the United States, is sufficient. Under § 1001 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, the United States are not required to give the bonds provided for by the Code of Alabama, as a condition precedent to the right to avail themselves of said provisions of that Code. Where, in such suit, the Circuit Court, after the seizure of the property, vacated the order for its seizure, on the ground of the insufficiency of the affidavit and for the want of a bond, but the United States had a judgment, and brought a writ of error, this court reversed the order of the Circuit Court vacating the order of seizure.

This was an action at law brought by the United States, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama, against Henry Bryant and J.V. Weekley, the complaint in which, filed August 8th, 1879, states that the plaintiffs claim of the defendants 2,740 pine logs, with the use thereof during the detention. The bark-marks and stamps and sizes and value of the logs were set forth, and the times when and places where they were cut.

With the complaint there was filed an affidavit in these words:

"United States of America, Southern District of Alabama, ss.: On this the 8th day of August, A.D. 1879, before me, Henry S. Skaats, a commissioner of the Circuit Court of said district, personally appeared J.J. Gainey, special agent General Land Office, who, being first sworn, deposes and says, that, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, the property sued for in the case of the United States against Henry Bryant and J.V. Weekley, for the recovery of two thousand seven hundred and forty pine logs, of the value of one dollar and twenty-five cents each, is the property of the plaintiffs, the said United States. J.J. Gainey. Sworn and subscribed before me this 8th day of August, A.D. 1879. Henry Skaats, U.S. Commissioner Sou. Dist. of Ala."

Thereupon, the clerk of the court issued the following order for seizure:

"United States of America: Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama. J.J. Gainey, special agent to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, having made affidavit, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, that the property sued for in the annexed complaint, namely, two thousand seven hundred and forty pine logs or sticks of timber, belongs to the plaintiff in said suit, the marshal of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama is required to take the property mentioned in the said complaint into his possession, unless the defendants give bond, payable to the said plaintiffs, with sufficient surety, in double the amount of the value of the property, with condition that if the defendant is cast in the suit he will within thirty days thereafter deliver the property to the plaintiffs, and pay all costs and damages which may accrue from the detention thereof. N.W. Trimble, Clerk U.S. Circuit Court Sou. Dist. Ala."

A summons having been issued, the marshal, on the 15th of January, 1880, made a return that he had served the summons and complaint on Bryant and had seized 858 of the logs described.

On the 22d of January, 1880, the defendants moved the court for an order dissolving the order of seizure, and directing the restoration of the property, on the ground that the record showed "that no affidavit or bond was given by the plaintiff, as required by law in detinue suits, to authorize the seizure by the marshal of the property sued for." This motion was founded on the following provisions of the statute of Alabama (Code, 1876):

"§ 2942 (2593). When a suit is brought for the recovery of personal chattels in specie, if the plaintiff, his agent or attorney, make affidavit that the property sued for belongs to the plaintiff, and execute a bond in such sum and with such surety as may be approved by the clerk, with condition that if the plaintiff fail in the suit he will pay the defendant all such costs and damages as he may sustain by the wrongful complaint, it is the duty of the clerk to indorse on the summons that the sheriff is required to take the property mentioned in the complaint into his possession, unless the defendant give bond payable to the plaintiff, with sufficient surety, in double the amount of the value of the property, with condition that if the defendant is cast in the suit, he will, within thirty days thereafter, deliver the property to the plaintiff and pay all costs and damages which may accrue from the detention thereof.

"§ 2943 (2594). If the defendant neglect for five days to give such bond, the property sued for must be delivered to the plaintiff, on his giving bond, with sufficient surety, in double the value of the property, payable to the defendant, with condition to deliver the property to the defendant within thirty days after judgment, in case he fail in the suit, and to pay damages for the detention of the property and costs of suit. If the plaintiff fail for five days to give such bond, after the expiration of the time allowed the defendant, the property must be returned to the defendant."

Before the motion was decided, the court, on the application of the United States, made an order, ex parte, on the 16th of February, 1880, directing the marshal to sell the logs at public auction. The sale was advertised for March 10th, but on March 8th the court stayed the execution of the order of sale till the pending motion to dissolve the order of seizure should be determined. On June 9th, 1880, the court made an order granting the motion to dissolve the order of seizure, and directing the marshal to restore the property seized. The United States excepted to such ruling. On January 10th, 1881, the case was tried by a jury, which found for the plaintiffs 500 logs and assessed their value at $150, and a judgment was entered that the plaintiffs recover of the defendants said 500 logs, or their alternate value, $150. On the same day, the United States moved the court to vacate the order dissolving the seizure of the logs, on the ground that the defendants had no property which was not exempt from execution by the laws of Alabama, other than the logs seized. On the 13th of January, the motion was denied, and the plaintiffs excepted. They then brought this writ of error, to review the judgment and proceedings.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. He stated the facts in the foregoing language, and continued:

This is not the case of an attachment against the property of a defendant, under § 915 of the Revised Statutes, but is a case where, under § 914, the forms and modes of proceeding are to conform, "as near as may be," to the forms and modes of proceeding existing at the time, in a like cause, in the courts of record of Alabama.

The suit is one for the recovery of personal chattels in specie, under section 2942 of the Code of Alabama. The affidavit for seizure is made by the special agent of the General Land Office, who swears that, "to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief," the property sued for is the property of the United States. The statute authorizes the affidavit to be made by "the plaintiff, his agent or attorney." The making of an affidavit by an agent or attorney necessarily implies that he may not be able to make it on positive knowledge; and where, in such a suit as this, the agent is the special agent of the General Land Office, an affidavit "to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief" is sufficient, till controverted. The United States can act only by agents, and the language of this statute does not require that such an agent as the special agent of the General Land Office should swear in any stronger form that the property belongs to the United States, or should set forth the grounds of his knowledge, information, or belief. The conformity in this case was one "as near as may be" to the mode of proceeding in Alabama.

We are not aware of any case in Alabama holding the contrary. The Alabama statute in regard to attachments at law, Code, § 3252, et seq., provides for issuing attachments against property in specified cases, and § 3255 for an affidavit to be made by "the plaintiff, his agent or attorney" of the amount of the debt or demand, and that it is justly due, and as to other matters. In Mitchell v. Pitts, 61 Ala. 219, in 1878, an affidavit for an attachment was made, under this statute, by an attorney for the plaintiffs, who swore "that he is informed and believes, and therefore states," that the debt was due, that the debtor and creditors resided out of the State of Alabama, and that, "according to the best of affiant's knowledge and belief," certain facts existed which the statute required to be shown by the oath of "the plaintiff, his agent or attorney." It was objected by the defendant, that the recital in the affidavit, that the deponent was informed and believed that the defendant was indebted, c., impaired the efficiency of his averment, thereupon made, of such indebtedness. But the court held otherwise, saying, that it was almost impossible that an attorney residing in the State could, where the parties resided out of it, absolutely know that the debt was still due and unpaid; that other causes for which attachments might issue, and which, under the statute, must be as positively sworn to by affidavit as the indebtedness of defendants, were of a nature which prevented it from being positively known whether they were true or not; and that, if the person who by law might make the oath, must positively know them to be true before he could swear to them, it could hardly ever happen that such causes would be available in any instance. These views properly apply to the case of a special agent of the General Land Office who is making oath to the property of the United States in pine logs.

A like ruling was made by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in Bridges v. Williams, 1 Martin, N.S., 98. The statute allowed an agent, in an attachment case, to swear to the debt. He swore to it "to the best of his knowledge." The court held, that, to give effect to the statute, the agent must be allowed to swear in the only manner in which he could safely swear, except in some few particular cases, namely, to the best of his knowledge and belief.

As to the bond, it is provided by § 1001 of the Revised Statutes, that whenever any process issues from a Circuit Court, by the United States, no bond, obligation, or other security shall be required from the United States, either to prosecute the suit, or to answer in damages or costs. The adoption of the State practice "as near as may be" does not have the effect to abrogate the provision of § 1001, so as to require the United States to give a bond for costs and damages, as a condition of obtaining the order of seizure, or to require them to give the bond provided in § 2943 of the Alabama Code. It has been held that the United States are relieved by § 1001 from giving the undertaking required from a plaintiff by § 782 of the Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia, on issuing an attachment. United States v. Ottman, 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 294.

The order made by the Circuit Court, June 9th, 1880, dissolving the order for the seizure of the property and directing the marshal to restore the property seized, and its order of January 13th, 1881, denying the motion to vacate the order of June 9th, 1880, are reversed, and

The case is remanded with direction to vacate the order of June 9 th, 1880, and to take such further proceedings in the suit as may be according to law and not inconsistent with this opinion.

UNITED STATES v. BRYANT