A Rule had been obtained to show cause why the Capias, which
issued in this case, should not be quashed, the Defendant being a
freeholder in the county of Chester. It appeared, that, with the
Pracipe for the writ, an affirmation of one Rumford Davis, was
filed in the Protbonotary's Office, setting forth, that 'the
Defendant had not been Resident in this State for two years before
the date of the writ;' and, it was contended, that this was
sufficient, under the Act of Assembly, to repel the Defendant's
claim of privilege. 1 St. Laws 139.
The question, therefore, was, whether the Court could,
notwithstanding the affirmation filed before the writ issued,
enquire into the matter of residence; in order to determine, on all
the circumstances of the case, whether the Defendant was within the
exceptions of the act? It was twice argued, on the 21st and 23rd of
May, by Sergeant for the Plaintiff, and Lewis for the Defendant;
and the substance of both arguments was as follows.
For the Plaintiff. The Act of Assembly rests the proof
exclusively on the Affidavit of the party, or some person for him;
requiring only that he should make the fact, which defeats a
freeholder's privilege from arrest, appear to the Justice who
grants the writ. Nor will the section admit of the division for
which the adverse counsel contend; because, though there is a
clause providing that things shall not be proved by affidavit,
which, in their nature establish a higher degree of proof; as
judgments, mortgages &c. yet
Page 1 U.S.
241, 242
even subsequent to that clause it is said, as the Deponent
believes; an expression which manifestly relates to the first part
of the section, and necessarily connects the whole. If, indeed, the
Court were to investigate the facts, both parties are entitled to a
hearing, and a new and preliminary scene of litigation would be
opened, involved in endless difficulties. The Legislature,
therefore, wisely made the filing the affidavit before the writ
issued, the conclusive test for holding the Defendant to bail; and,
from the circumstances under which the law was passed, we are
authorized to assert, that without these easy exceptions, the
privilege itself would never have been granted. But, if the
doctrine which the opposite side advance is allowed, the 2nd and
3rd Sections of the act, would contradict each other, instead of
holding that clear and fair meaning, which, taken according to
their distinct objects, they naturally present. For, should any
one, contrary to the spirit of the 1st Section, issue a Capias
against a freeholder, then the 3rd Section provides a remedy, by
directing the Court to stay all proceedings against the Defendant,
until they examine his circumstance, and if they find he is such as
the act intended to be exempted, they are required to abate the
writ. But this is in the case of an arrest in the first instance,
and not of a Capias founded upon an Affidavit previously filed,
according to the terms of the 2nd Section; which terms make a
Condition precedent, and, being complied with, the most wealthy
freeholder is subject to an arrest; nor can the Court afterwards
interfere to relieve him. For the Defendant. The Act of Assembly
upon this subject is clearly divided into two parts; first, it
treats of those cases which depend implicity on the affidavit of
the party, stating the facts uncomplicated complicated with law;
and secondly, it treats of those cases, which depend on their
respective circumstances, when brought into question before the
Court. The present case does not come within the first class, but
is fairly within the second; for, having enumerated all the
exceptions which may be proved by the oath of the party, or some
person for him, the act goes on to state the exceptions which are
to be made appear from Records or otherwise; and, the very last of
these, is the instance on which the controversy arises. The
Defendant's objection being thus warranted by the letter of the
law, will be supported, likewise, by the principle and reason of
the thing. For, would it not be absurd to leave it to an
illiterate, though honest, man, to determine what constitutes a
legal residence? Or, to suffer an unprincipled, though cautious,
Plaintiff, to take advantage of a short absence, to justify his
swearing, that the Defendant has not been resident within the
State, for two years before the arrest? If the Court cannot at all
develope the circumstances, it will make no difference in the case,
whether the absence is for a year, or a day; on a party of
pleasure, or a journey of business; the privilege of the most
substantial freeholder, must lie forever at the mercy of his
antagonist; and even a continental officer, dispatched upon the
duties of his profession to another state, will be equally
liable
Page 1 U.S.
241, 243
to this constructive abridgment of the rights of citizenship. A
stronger illustration of this truth cannot be required, than the
cause before the Court; for, the Defendant has, within the very two
years specified in the affirmation, represented this Commonwealth
in the General Assembly, in the State Convention, and in Congress;
and yet, it is contended, that the vague idea of an unlettered
individual on the point of residence, shall be sufficient to
deprive him of the privilege of his freehold, and, in effect, to
declare him an alien. There is, however, an essential difference
between residence, and abiding in a particular place. It is
admitted, that the Defendant did not abide with the State for two
years before the arrest; but, we contend, that, nevertheless, in
contemplation of law, his residence was here: For, a man is always
presumed to reside where his family is; and, though when he goes
abroad upon any temporary avocation, he abides in that district to
which he goes, yet this does not destroy his original, domestic,
Residence. By one Act of Assembly it is provided, that foreign
attachments shall only issue against such as are not resident
within the State; 1 State Laws 44. And by another act, 1 State Laws
170, it is declared, that no person who has not resided within the
State two years before his imprisonment, shall have the benefit of
the insolvent laws: In these cases, and in the construction of the
Poor Laws, and, in short, of all the statutes in which the word
occurs, it has been the invariable practice of the Courts to
enquire into the facts, upon which the residence is either asserted
or denied; and, on that enquiry, to pronounce the law. Thus on the
petition of one M'Intire for the benefit of the insolvant law,
although he had been absent more than two years and a half; yet, as
it was in proof that he was a Native, and always intended to return
hither, this Court lately determined that his residence became a
matter of law, and that the animum revertendi was sufficient to
prevent his loosing the advantages of it. What then is the proper
interpretation of the act upon this subject? That the party shall
set forth in his affidavit such facts, as will enable the Court to
draw the legal inference, with respect to the Defendant's
residence; which, after all, is a technical term, 5 Burr. 2724, and
the maxim is well established, that a witness may swear to matter
of fact, but not to matter of law. This rule, indeed, (which
applies in all cases of evidence) satisfactorily explains why a
disjunctive is introduced in the section under consideration; why
the provision in the former part of the clause, that the Justice
who grants the writ shall administer the oath, is omitted in the
latter; and why the words, the Plaintiff, or some other person for
him, are dropt, when the section comes to treat of those things
which are matter of law; for the expression as the Deponent
believes, at the same time that it precedes the sentence respecting
the Defendant's residence, evidently relates to the value of the
estate, and not the mode of proving the incumberances that affect
it. But surely the legislature could not mean to make a man the
judge both of fact and
Page 1 U.S.
241, 244
law in his own cause, and that without appeal. Holt asserts that
an Act of Parliament which should authorize so unreasonable a
thing, would be void; and it is fortunate, on this occasion, that a
candid review of the law itself, does not countenance this
absurdity, which lies only in the Plaintiff's construction. The
first clause defines the Persons privileged; the second narrows
down the privilege by a variety of exceptions; these exceptions are
either in fact or law; and the exceptions in law are such as must
either be determined by the records themselves, or by the Court
upon a statement of the facts on which they arise. If, therefore,
it had been intended to leave the matter of residency entirely to
the affidavit of the party, the division of the section by the word
or, would have been postponed, and this sentence must then have
been classed before those things which are to be proved from
records or otherwise. Nor is the word otherwise to be considered as
merely distinguishing the proofs by record, from those by
affidavit; but as meaning such other evidence as the common law
requires: for, surely it would be as improper, nay, more dangerous,
to permit a man to swear as to the residency of his adversary, than
as to the existence of a mortgage or judgment, which he might
easily ascertain, by inspecting the dockets and records in which
they are entered.
But, let us suppose, that there was no disjunctive in the
section, and enquire, for a moment, whether the Court, even on that
ground, have not a right to investigate the facts contained in the
affirmation? By the last sentence of the second section, all the
affidavits, taken in pursurance of the act, are directed to be
filed: now, this cannot be intended merely to show that an
affidavit has been made, for that would sufficiently appear from
the entry in the docket; but as another, more beneficial, purpose,
results from this practice, the Court will think themselves bound
to support that purpose, as the real object of the legislature; and
will determine, accordingly, that the filing of the affidavits is
intended to give the Judges an opportunity of seeing, on any future
controversy, whether the allegations bring the case legally within
the exceptions of the act. In the instance of residence, above all
others, as few Plaintiffs comprehend the technical import of the
word, this provision seems to be indispensible; and when the 3rd
section says, that if the Court find the Defendant is such as by
the act is entended to be exempted from arrest, it furnishes a
conclusive argument, that they must examine the evidence produced
by the Parties; for, in order to find a particular object, it is
clearly requisite, in the first place, to search for it.
These ideas on the subject are, likewise, corroborated by the
uniform practice of the Courts; which has been to issue the Capias
at once, leaving the proof of the exception, 'till the Defendant
makes his claim of privilege. The Defendant in the present case
would be under no difficulty to obtain bail; but the principal
ground of his opposition is, that if he now tacitly suffers himself
to be arrested, his privilege, by the words of the act, will be
forever extinguished.
Page 1 U.S.
241, 245
For the Plaintiff, in reply. Though the best Freeholder may be
arrested after notice to enter special bail, yet, as this is a
compulsory process, it will not destroy his privilege in another
action. To do that, there must be a willing submission to an
arrest, by which the Defendant holds out to the world that he is
not within the privilege of the act. Residence is certainly a
construction of law in a great variety of instances. Nutbrown's
case in Foster 76. shows that a man may have several places of
residence, and any of them may be the subject of a Burglary. O, by
the Poor laws, a man may live in a particular place all his life
except one day, and yet not acquire a legal residence; for, he may
be under a certificate, or he may not have complied with the
conditions of the statutes: And in the case of Ambassadors,
although they actually reside abroad, their children are deemed
natural born subjects of the realm. 5 Burr. 2724. is grounded on
the words of the Act of Parliament. But the Act of Assembly in
discussion, clearly meant a literal and not a technical and
constructive residence, or it would not have been made the subject
of an affidavit, which is to be sworn by persons not generally
possessed of technical information. The decisions under the
attachment law, establish a distinction between inhabitants and
residents; as in the case of Lazarus Barnet,* where the foreign
attachments were quashed, because he came under the former
description. With respect to decisions under the insolvent laws,
whether the petitioner has resided in the state two years, or not,
is a matter immediately before the Court; but in the present case,
it is a fact to be sworn to in order to entitle the Plaintiff to a
certain advantage. The whole law is connected, indeed, by the idea
of an affidavit; and there are many instances where an incumberance
to diminish the value of the Defendant's estate may be proved
without producing the mortgage or record. For example; at any time
before the acts for recording deeds and mortgages; or, within six
months, since those acts respectively, evidence might be given of a
mortgage in the hands of a third person; or a scrivener might prove
that he had witnessed the execution of a conveyance from the
Defendant. The reason for filing the affidavit, is, that it may
appear to the Court what it contains; for, swearing to any thing
does not entitle the Plaintiff to bail. If, however, it is made in
conformity to the act, it is conclusive; then, (as Lord Mansfield
somewhere expresses himself) he is sworn, and you have no remedy
but to prosecute him. The act says, in all such cases, that is,
where the regular affidavit is made, a Capias shall issue. This is
included in the very clause where judgments are mentioned; so that,
in strictness, the exception founded on judgments, ought, likewise,
to be accompanied with an affidavit. Nor is this making a man the
judge in his own cause; for he only swears to the words in their
literal and customary meaning and import.
Page 1 U.S.
241, 246
The law declares that if any Freeholder exempted from arrest by
virtue of this act, shall happen to be taken by a writ of arrest,
the Court shall abate the writ. But, if an affidavit has been filed
agreeably to the second section, no man can be a Freeholder
exempted by the act from arrest; and, consequently, the Capias, in
this case, shall be maintained. The act was evidently the result of
a compromise between contending parties; one side obtained a
general clause exempting Freeholders from arrest; and the other
side, guarded against this privilege by a Proviso, which, in fact,
puts it in the power of any person to compel a Freeholder to give
bail. But if the Court can enquire into the facts in all cases,
this provision is a mere snare; for should the weight of affidavits
be eventually against the Plaintiff, he will not only lose his
action, but be condemned in treble costs. Upon the first argument,
SHIPPEN, President, observed, that there was considerable ambiguity
in the Act of Assembly; and that he was not satisfied with respect
to the meaning of the expression 'where the Plaintiff can make
appear from records, or otherwise,' as it was not specified to whom
the exception should be made appear. He said that in several cases
(one of which he remembered was on Mr. Levy's motion) it had been
determined that the second section of the act was disjoined; and
that no affidavit was necessary to support the exception founded
upon a judgment, which was the legal test of its own existence, and
no other evidence would be received to prove it. He added, at the
same time, that the words, as the Deponent believes, clearly
related to the Defendant's not having a sufficient estate left to
satisfy the Plaintiff's demand; that it is not necessary to set
forth the facts in the affidavit under this act, as it is in
England where a positive affidavit is required to hold the
Defendant to bail; that it, indeed, the whole of the second section
were connected, it would amount to a condition precedent, and a
positive affidavit would preclude the Court from any enquiry into
the facts; but, he continued, that the section was not only
disjoined by the words of the act (in the first place admitting
proofs by affidavit or affirmation; and in the second place
requiring proofs from records or otherwise) but also by the reason
and propriety of the case, which will not permit a Plaintiff, in
his own favor, to determine what constitutes a legal residence.
Smith, the Prothonotary, being asked as to the Practice, said, that
in some cases the affidavits were filed before, but, more
frequently, after the issuing of the writ. If the suggestion was,
that the Defendant intended to go abroad, the affidavit had always
been filed in the first instance; but with respect to the case of
residence, he did not recollect any instance, before the present,
where that was done. The President now delivered the opinion of the
Court.
SHIPPEN, President. We have found some difficulty in obtaining a
satisfactory idea of the meaning of the second section of this act.
It would seem, by the former part, that the exception, upon
Page 1 U.S.
241, 247
which the Capias is grounded, ought to be made appear to the
Justice who grants the writ; but, in the latter part, when the
disjunction of the clause occurs, the expression is general, if the
Plaintiff can make appear from records or otherwise, without saying
to whom he shall make his allegation appear. At first, indeed, I
thought this might also relate to the Justice who grants the writ;
but on a further consideration of the subject, I am convinced, that
unless the legislature intended something more, it would never have
been provided by the third section, that the Court shall stay all
proceedings against the Defendant, till they examine his
circumstance; for, it would have been useless and nugatory to
direct that examination, if they were, nevertheless, bound by the
contents of the affidavit. Besides, upon the principles of common
justice, it is material, that the Court should have the power of
making an enquiry into the facts; for, though the Plaintiff's
opinion is taken, in the first instance, to ascertain whether there
is a sufficient estate left for the payment of his demand; yet it
would be unreasonable to deprive the Defendant of his privilege, if
he could, afterwards, show, that independent of a trifling mortgage
or judgment, an ample security was left for his adversary's debt.
Nor is the equity of the case less applicable upon the question of
residence; for, an occasional absence of a month, or a week, might
with safety be made the foundation of the affidavit required by the
act; and, yet, who will say, that, in law or reason, this ought to
work a disfranchisement of the Defendant? The law is explicit, that
if the Court find the Defendant is such, as by the act is intended
to be exempted, the writ shall be abated; and this, surely, also
implies something beyond a mere enquiry, whether an affidavit has
been previously filed. If he is such 'as by the act is intended to
be exempted,' is a sentence materially to be regarded in the
clause; for, otherwise, it would have been sufficient to say, that
if no affidavit is filed, nor any mortgage or judgment is produced,
the Defendant shall be discharged from the action. It is evident,
upon the whole, that the Legislature did not mean to subject a
citizen of large estate to the process of a Capias, on account of a
short absence from the state; and, therefore, we are of opinion,
that they have left a controuling power in the Court to enquire
into the circumstances of the case, and to relieve a Defendant from
an arrest, if we think he was intended to be exempted, although the
words, that he has not been resident, may be inserted in the
Plaintiff's affidavit. The Defendant was, accordingly, allowed to
controvert the fact, of his not being resident in the State for two
years before the writ issued.*
Footnotes
[
Footnote *] See Ant. 152.
[
Footnote *] See post the same
case.
Comments
Be the first to comment
Leave a Comment