text:
United States v. Wiley

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia; the suit below being one by the United States against J. F. Wiley, former marshal of the Eastern District of the State just named, upon his official bond. The case was this:

A statute of April 10th, 1806, 'relating to bonds given by marshals,' enacts by its second section, that it shall be lawful in case of a breach of condition, 'for any person, persons, or body politic thereby injured, to institute a suit.' A fourth section enacts:

'That all suits on marshals' bonds. . . shall be commenced and prosecuted within six years after the right of action shall have accrued, saving nevertheless the rights of infants, feme coverts, and persons non compos mentis, so that they sue within three years after their disabilities are removed.'

In 1861 the Southern rebellion broke out. The present cause of action arose in the previous year.

Four years or more afterwards, that is to say, on the 11th of June, 1864, Congress passed an act enacting:

'That whenever, during the existence of the present rebelhon, any action, civil or criminal, shall accrue against any person, who, by reason of resistance to the execution of the laws of the United States, or the interruption of the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, cannot be served with process for the commencement of said action—

'Or the arrest of such person; or whenever, after such action shall have accrued, such person cannot, by reason of such resistance to the execution of the laws of the United States, or such interruption of the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, be arrested, or served with process for the commencement of the action—

'The time during which such person shall so be beyond the reach of legal process, shall not be deemed or taken as any part of the time limited by law for the commencement of the action.'

On the 15th of February, 1869, about nine years after the cause of action arose, this suit was brought. The defendant pleaded the statute of April 10th, 1806. A general replication was put in, with leave to offer in evidence all matters which might have been replied specially. It was agreed of record, 'that, from the 24th day of May, 1861, to the 24th day of May, 1865, the defendants were actual residents of the State of Virginia, and that, during the whole of that period, by reason of resistance to the execution of the laws of the United States and the interruption of the ordinary course of judicial proceedings in the State of Virginia, the defendants could not be served with process for the commencement of this action.'

The court below gave judgment for the marshal, and the United States brought the case here.

Mr. Akerman, Attorney-General, Mr. Bristow, Solicitor-General, and Mr. Hill, Assistant Attorney-General, for the United States, contended, 1st, that the act of the 10th April, 1806, was meant to limit suits brought by individuals on the marshal's bond, and that the limitation of six years prescribed in it did not touch the rights of the government; against which it was a general principle that limitations did not run.

2d. That however this might be, the case was covered by Hanger v. Abbott, and The Protector, to the effect that the time during which the courts in the lately rebellious States were closed to the opposing belligerents, was to be excluded from the computation of time fixed by the statute of limitations within which suits must be brought; that there was no reason, if the statute of limitations ran against the United States at all, why this exclusion should not be made in respect of suits brought by them as well as suits brought by their citizens.

Mr. Tazewell Taylor, contra:

The language of the act of April 10th, 1806, is general. No exception is made in favor of the government. The government could have repealed it if it had desired to. Its not doing so is evidence of its purpose to be bound by it.

Does the simple fact of war alter the case? Hanger v. Abbott, that war suspended the statutes that war supended the statutes running against citizens' claims by one citizen on another. They had no right to sue during war. The act of the government had made it criminal for them to do so. But the case with the United States was different. There was never a suspension for a moment, of the right of the United States to sue; no act of the government which was intended to prevent it from commencing an action. Moreover, if the cases just above referred to are open for any reconsideration, it is worthy of remark that it is a well-settled rule of construction in England, that the courts will not ingraft exceptions upon a general statute of limitations, merely because they stand upon as strong grounds of reason, or upon the same grounds as the exceptions, which may have been introduced into it; or because it may be thought unjust or unreasonable, that the statute should not contain them. We cite 'the great case,' as it is called by Sir William Grant, of Stowel v. Lord Zouche, in Plowden, pp. 353, 369; and Beckford v. Wade, the latter case decided upon great consideration, and after a review of the leading authorities, by Sir. W. Grant, one of the most eminent judges, and one of the ablest and soundest reasoners, that ever sat in the English Court of Chancery. Though the case of Beckford v. Wade is a different case from the one now before the court, yet in that case the master of the rolls inquires at considerable length into the reasonableness of the rule to which we have referred, and reviews some of the most respectable and weighty authorities by which it is established. His opinion seems to be in favor of the rule, and he refers to the cases of Lord Buckinghamshire v. Drury, and Stowel v. Lord Zouche, to show that infants and married women would have been bound by general statutes of limitations, unless they had been expressly excepted out of them. He further states, that absent defendants had the benefit of the statute of limitations, until a statute was passed in the reign of Queen Anne to prevent them from taking advantage of it. Surely there could not be in any case stronger reasons for excepting it from the statute, than in the case of a plaintiff who could not sue, because the debtor had absconded or chose to be out of the realm. Yet all attempts to introduce such an exception had failed, until the legislature was obliged to interfere. He refers also to the cases of Hall v. Wybourn, and Aubry v. Fortescue, with apparent approval; in which the opinion had been expressed, that even if the courts were shut up in time of war, so that no original could be served, the statute of limitations would continue to run, and certainly no cases can stand upon stronger grounds than some of the cases mentioned above, in which the courts constantly refused to make any exception.

Does the act of June 11, 1864, alter the case? That act has two branches, and in both its operation is prospective. With respect to those actions, which in the language of the act 'shall accrue,' this is palpably clear. It is clear, also, that in relation to actions, which shall have accrued, it is prospective to this extent, that although it applies to past transactions, that is to say, to causes of action which had accrued before its passage, still, even in those cases, it deducts from the time which may have elapsed since the cause of action arose, only so much of the time of the rebellion, or of the period when process could not be served, as elapsed after the passage of the act. This appears from the use of the phrases, 'cannot be,' and 'shall so be.' The act does not use the words, cannot have been,' but 'cannot be.' It does not say, 'shall so have been,' but who 'shall so be beyond the reach of legal process. Both these expressions are prospective, and can only mean, that if, after the passage of the act, any person cannot be arrested, then the time, after the passage of the act, during which process is obstructed, shall be deducted, in computing the time within which the action may be, or might have been, brought.

Congress has, therefore, said, that so much of the time of the rebellion as elapsed after the passage of the act aforesaid shall not be computed in applying the act of limitations. This is equivalent to saying that the residue of the term of the war shall be computed.

What we ask the court to do is, to consider the plain language of an act of Congress, and to carry out the intent of the law, as gathered from that language. We insist, therefore, that, even if the act of limitations of 1806 ought, in the absence of all other legislation on the subject, to have been construed in the same way that the statute of Arkansas was by the court in Hanger v. Abbott, still, the act of June 11th, 1864, has changed the law.

Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Wiley


text:
United States Code/Title 11/Chapter 5/Section 521

§ 521. Debtor's duties

 * (a) The debtor shall—
 * (1) file—
 * (A) a list of creditors; and
 * (B) unless the court orders otherwise—
 * (i) a schedule of assets and liabilities;
 * (ii) a schedule of current income and current expenditures;
 * (iii) a statement of the debtor’s financial affairs and, if section 342 (b) applies, a certificate—
 * (I) of an attorney whose name is indicated on the petition as the attorney for the debtor, or a bankruptcy petition preparer signing the petition under section 110 (b)(1), indicating that such attorney or the bankruptcy petition preparer delivered to the debtor the notice required by section 342 (b); or
 * (II) if no attorney is so indicated, and no bankruptcy petition preparer signed the petition, of the debtor that such notice was received and read by the debtor;
 * (iv) copies of all payment advices or other evidence of payment received within 60 days before the date of the filing of the petition, by the debtor from any employer of the debtor;
 * (v) a statement of the amount of monthly net income, itemized to show how the amount is calculated; and
 * (vi) a statement disclosing any reasonably anticipated increase in income or expenditures over the 12-month period following the date of the filing of the petition;
 * (2) if an individual debtor’s schedule of assets and liabilities includes debts which are secured by property of the estate—
 * (A) within thirty days after the date of the filing of a petition under chapter 7 of this title or on or before the date of the meeting of creditors, whichever is earlier, or within such additional time as the court, for cause, within such period fixes, the debtor shall file with the clerk a statement of his intention with respect to the retention or surrender of such property and, if applicable, specifying that such property is claimed as exempt, that the debtor intends to redeem such property, or that the debtor intends to reaffirm debts secured by such property;
 * (B) within 30 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under section 341 (a), or within such additional time as the court, for cause, within such 30-day period fixes, the debtor shall perform his intention with respect to such property, as specified by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; and
 * (C) nothing in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph shall alter the debtor’s or the trustee’s rights with regard to such property under this title, except as provided in section 362 (h);
 * (3) if a trustee is serving in the case or an auditor serving under section 586 (f) of title 28, cooperate with the trustee as necessary to enable the trustee to perform the trustee’s duties under this title;
 * (4) if a trustee is serving in the case or an auditor serving under section 586 (f) of title 28, surrender to the trustee all property of the estate and any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, relating to property of the estate, whether or not immunity is granted under section 344 of this title;
 * (5) appear at the hearing required under section 524 (d) of this title;
 * (6) in a case under chapter 7 of this title in which the debtor is an individual, not retain possession of personal property as to which a creditor has an allowed claim for the purchase price secured in whole or in part by an interest in such personal property unless the debtor, not later than 45 days after the first meeting of creditors under section 341 (a), either—
 * (A) enters into an agreement with the creditor pursuant to section 524 (c) with respect to the claim secured by such property; or
 * (B) redeems such property from the security interest pursuant to section 722; and
 * (7) unless a trustee is serving in the case, continue to perform the obligations required of the administrator (as defined in section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) of an employee benefit plan if at the time of the commencement of the case the debtor (or any entity designated by the debtor) served as such administrator.
 * If the debtor fails to so act within the 45-day period referred to in paragraph (6), the stay under section 362 (a) is terminated with respect to the personal property of the estate or of the debtor which is affected, such property shall no longer be property of the estate, and the creditor may take whatever action as to such property as is permitted by applicable nonbankruptcy law, unless the court determines on the motion of the trustee filed before the expiration of such 45-day period, and after notice and a hearing, that such property is of consequential value or benefit to the estate, orders appropriate adequate protection of the creditor’s interest, and orders the debtor to deliver any collateral in the debtor’s possession to the trustee.

 * (b) In addition to the requirements under subsection (a), a debtor who is an individual shall file with the court—
 * (1) a certificate from the approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency that provided the debtor services under section 109 (h) describing the services provided to the debtor; and
 * (2) a copy of the debt repayment plan, if any, developed under section 109 (h) through the approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency referred to in paragraph (1).

 * (c) In addition to meeting the requirements under subsection (a), a debtor shall file with the court a record of any interest that a debtor has in an education individual retirement account (as defined in section 530(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) or under a qualified State tuition program (as defined in section 529(b)(1) of such Code).

 * (d) If the debtor fails timely to take the action specified in subsection (a)(6) of this section, or in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 362 (h), with respect to property which a lessor or bailor owns and has leased, rented, or bailed to the debtor or as to which a creditor holds a security interest not otherwise voidable under section 522 (f), 544, 545, 547, 548, or 549, nothing in this title shall prevent or limit the operation of a provision in the underlying lease or agreement that has the effect of placing the debtor in default under such lease or agreement by reason of the occurrence, pendency, or existence of a proceeding under this title or the insolvency of the debtor. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to justify limiting such a provision in any other circumstance.

 * (e)
 * (1) If the debtor in a case under chapter 7 or 13 is an individual and if a creditor files with the court at any time a request to receive a copy of the petition, schedules, and statement of financial affairs filed by the debtor, then the court shall make such petition, such schedules, and such statement available to such creditor.
 * (2)
 * (A) The debtor shall provide—
 * (i) not later than 7 days before the date first set for the first meeting of creditors, to the trustee a copy of the Federal income tax return required under applicable law (or at the election of the debtor, a transcript of such return) for the most recent tax year ending immediately before the commencement of the case and for which a Federal income tax return was filed; and
 * (ii) at the same time the debtor complies with clause (i), a copy of such return (or if elected under clause (i), such transcript) to any creditor that timely requests such copy.
 * (B) If the debtor fails to comply with clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A), the court shall dismiss the case unless the debtor demonstrates that the failure to so comply is due to circumstances beyond the control of the debtor.
 * (C) If a creditor requests a copy of such tax return or such transcript and if the debtor fails to provide a copy of such tax return or such transcript to such creditor at the time the debtor provides such tax return or such transcript to the trustee, then the court shall dismiss the case unless the debtor demonstrates that the failure to provide a copy of such tax return or such transcript is due to circumstances beyond the control of the debtor.
 * (3) If a creditor in a case under chapter 13 files with the court at any time a request to receive a copy of the plan filed by the debtor, then the court shall make available to such creditor a copy of the plan—
 * (A) at a reasonable cost; and
 * (B) not later than 7 days after such request is filed.

 * (f) At the request of the court, the United States trustee, or any party in interest in a case under chapter 7, 11, or 13, a debtor who is an individual shall file with the court—
 * (1) at the same time filed with the taxing authority, a copy of each Federal income tax return required under applicable law (or at the election of the debtor, a transcript of such tax return) with respect to each tax year of the debtor ending while the case is pending under such chapter;
 * (2) at the same time filed with the taxing authority, each Federal income tax return required under applicable law (or at the election of the debtor, a transcript of such tax return) that had not been filed with such authority as of the date of the commencement of the case and that was subsequently filed for any tax year of the debtor ending in the 3-year period ending on the date of the commencement of the case;
 * (3) a copy of each amendment to any Federal income tax return or transcript filed with the court under paragraph (1) or (2); and
 * (4) in a case under chapter 13—
 * (A) on the date that is either 90 days after the end of such tax year or 1 year after the date of the commencement of the case, whichever is later, if a plan is not confirmed before such later date; and
 * (B) annually after the plan is confirmed and until the case is closed, not later than the date that is 45 days before the anniversary of the confirmation of the plan;
 * a statement, under penalty of perjury, of the income and expenditures of the debtor during the tax year of the debtor most recently concluded before such statement is filed under this paragraph, and of the monthly income of the debtor, that shows how income, expenditures, and monthly income are calculated.

 * (g)
 * (1) A statement referred to in subsection (f)(4) shall disclose—
 * (A) the amount and sources of the income of the debtor;
 * (B) the identity of any person responsible with the debtor for the support of any dependent of the debtor; and
 * (C) the identity of any person who contributed, and the amount contributed, to the household in which the debtor resides.
 * (2) The tax returns, amendments, and statement of income and expenditures described in subsections (e)(2)(A) and (f) shall be available to the United States trustee (or the bankruptcy administrator, if any), the trustee, and any party in interest for inspection and copying, subject to the requirements of section 315(c) of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

 * (h) If requested by the United States trustee or by the trustee, the debtor shall provide—
 * (1) a document that establishes the identity of the debtor, including a driver’s license, passport, or other document that contains a photograph of the debtor; or
 * (2) such other personal identifying information relating to the debtor that establishes the identity of the debtor.

 * (i)
 * (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (4) and notwithstanding section 707 (a), if an individual debtor in a voluntary case under chapter 7 or 13 fails to file all of the information required under subsection (a)(1) within 45 days after the date of the filing of the petition, the case shall be automatically dismissed effective on the 46th day after the date of the filing of the petition.
 * (2) Subject to paragraph (4) and with respect to a case described in paragraph (1), any party in interest may request the court to enter an order dismissing the case. If requested, the court shall enter an order of dismissal not later than 7 days after such request.
 * (3) Subject to paragraph (4) and upon request of the debtor made within 45 days after the date of the filing of the petition described in paragraph (1), the court may allow the debtor an additional period of not to exceed 45 days to file the information required under subsection (a)(1) if the court finds justification for extending the period for the filing.
 * (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, on the motion of the trustee filed before the expiration of the applicable period of time specified in paragraph (1), (2), or (3), and after notice and a hearing, the court may decline to dismiss the case if the court finds that the debtor attempted in good faith to file all the information required by subsection (a)(1)(B)(iv) and that the best interests of creditors would be served by administration of the case.

 * (j)
 * (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, if the debtor fails to file a tax return that becomes due after the commencement of the case or to properly obtain an extension of the due date for filing such return, the taxing authority may request that the court enter an order converting or dismissing the case.
 * (2) If the debtor does not file the required return or obtain the extension referred to in paragraph (1) within 90 days after a request is filed by the taxing authority under that paragraph, the court shall convert or dismiss the case, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: Talk:United States v. Wiley

title: Talk:United States v. Wiley


text:
United States v. Wiley/Opinion of the Court

Whether the act of April 10th, 1806, which prescribes a limitation to suits upon marshals' bonds, is applicable to suits brought by the United States, is a question which we do not propose now to answer, for, if it is, we are still of the opinion that the defendants' plea of the statute was an insufficient bar.

The cause of action arose in 1860, and the present suit was brought on the 15th of February, 1869. But it is stipulated between the parties that from the 24th day of May, 1861, to the 24th day of May, 1865, the defendants were actual residents of the State of Virginia, and that during the whole of that period, by reason of resistance to the execution of the laws of the United States, and the interruption of the ordinary course of judicial proceedings in said State of Virginia, the defendants could not be served with process for the commencement of the action. We know, judicially, that during the four years in which the process could not be served there existed a state of war, and that the inability to effect service was caused by that. The question, therefore is whether the time during which the war existed, and during which it was impossible to serve process for commencement of suit, is to be deducted from the time which elapsed between 1860 and February 15th, 1869.

In Hanger v. Abbott it was decided that the effect of the war was to suspend the running of statutes of limitation during its continuance, in suits between the inhabitants of the loyal States and the inhabitants of those in rebellion. The same doctrine was repeated in substance in The Protector. It would answer no good purpose to go behind the decisions and review the reasons upon which they are founded. We are still of opinion that they rest upon sound principle. But it is said those decisions only rule that the war suspended the statutes' running against claims by one citizen upon another, and that they do not relate to claims of the government against its own citizens resident in rebellious States. This may be conceded, but the same reasons which justify the application of the rule to one class of cases require its application to the other. True, the right of a citizen to sue during the continuance of the war was suspended, while the right of the government remained unimpaired. But it is the loss of the ability to sue rather than the loss of the right that stops the running of the statute. The inability may arise from a suspension of right, or from the closing of the courts, but whatever the original cause, the proximate and operative reason is that the claimant is deprived of the power to institute his suit. Statutes of limitations are indeed statutes of repose. They are enacted upon the presumption that one having a well-founded claim will not delay enforcing it beyond a reasonable time, if he has the power to sue. Such reasonable time is therefore defined and allowed. But the basis of the presumption is gone whenever the ability to resort to the courts has been taken away. In such a case the creditor has not the time within which to bring his suit that the statute contemplated he should have. It is quite obvious that this is the case, as well where the government is the creditor as where the creditor is a citizen of the government, and if, therefore, the running of the statute is suspended in favor of the citizen, with equal reason must it be in favor of the government. There is also great force in the thought suggested by the observations made in Hanger v. Abbott, that 'unless the rule be so, the citizens of a State may escape the payment of their debts to the government by entering into an insurrection and rebellion, if they are able to close the courts and successfully resist the laws until the bar of the statute shall have become complete. Such a doctrine is too unreasonable to be for an instant admitted.'

It has been argued, however, on behalf of the defendants in error, that if the general rule be as above stated, it was changed by the act of Congress of June 11th, 1864. The operation of the statute, it is said, is to direct that the time after the passage of the act during which process might be hindered shall be deducted in computing the time within which the action should have been brought, and hence that an implication arises that the time antecedent to its passage shall not be deducted. Such is not our understanding of the enactment. It is, doubtless, prospective as furnishing a rule for the action of courts, but it did not abrogate the common law. Even were it admitted that the time required to be deducted is only that which was after the passage of the act, there is no necessary implication that the time antecedent to its passage should be taken as a part of the period limited by law for the commencement of actions. The act of March 2d, 1867, authorized appeals and writs of error from and to courts in judicial districts when the regular sessions of the courts had been suspended by insurrection or rebellion, if brought or sued out within one year from the passage of the act. This act might with more reason be claimed as raising an implication that such appeals or writs of error cannot be allowed after the expiration of a year from its passage. Yet in The Protector it was held that an appeal was in time though not taken until July 28th, 1869, more than eight years after the final decree in the Circuit Court, and more than two years after the enactment of 1867, and this because the four years of the war were to be deducted. In other words, the statute being affirmative only, raised no implication of an intent to repeal a former statute or alter the common law to which it was not repugnant.

The purpose of the act of 1864 was manifestly remedial, to preserve and restore rights and remedies suspended by the war. Hence it is entitled to a liberal construction in favor of those whose rights and remedies were in fact suspended. The mischief it sought to remove would be but half remedied were it construed as contended for by the plaintiffs in error. It is not, therefore, to be admitted that the intention of Congress was to prescribe a deduction only of the time which might elapse after the passage of the act, during which it might be impossible to serve process. On the contrary, we are of opinion that the statute requires all the time to be deducted during which the suit could not be prosecuted by reason of resistance to the laws, or interruption of judicial proceedings, whether such time was before or after its passage. Such we have decided to be its meaning at the present term, in Stewart v. Kahn, and it is unnecessary to repeat the reasons given for the decision.

These observations are sufficient to show that in our opinion there was error in entering a judgment for the defendants.

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.


text: Talk:United States v. Wiley/Opinion of the Court


text: Seymour v. Osborne

title: Seymour v. Osborne


text: Talk:Seymour v. Osborne

title: Talk:Seymour v. Osborne