Ex parte McCullough

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1868Published

Before: Sanderson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the validity of a court order or judgment for mere error; the inquiry is strictly limited to whether the court acted within its jurisdiction.

Issues

Whether a writ of habeas corpus may be used to review an allegedly erroneous order requiring a debtor to surrender property for execution.
Whether the court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the delivery of an endowment policy claimed to be exempt from execution.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The writ of habeas corpus has not been given for the purpose of reviewing judgments or orders made by a Court, or Judge or officer acting within their jurisdiction.”

“My power extends no further than to declare whether his order is void for the want of jurisdiction, or his process, upon its face, invalid.”

Synopsis

Office of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.—Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for every unlawful imprisonment, both in civil and criminal cases j but an imprisonment is not unlawful, in the sense of this rule, merely because the process or order under which the party is held has been irregularly issued, or is erroneous.

Idem.—The functions of the writ, where the party appealing to its aid is in custody under process, does not extend beyond an inquiry into the jurisdiction of the Court by which it was issued, and the validity of the process upon its face.

Idem—Property Exempt from Execution.—The petitioner, against whose property an execution, in pursuance of a lawful judgment recovered against him, had been issued, refused to deliver to the Sheriff a certain paid up life insurance policy in satisfaction of the execution, on the ground that the policy was exempt under the statute concerning life insurance policies. (Stats. 1867-8, p. 500.) In a proceeding supplementary to execution, regularly taken and pursued, a final order was made by the Court in which the judgment had been rendered, requiring petitioner to deliver the policy in satisfaction of the execution; and on his refusal to obey the order, committed him to the County Jail until it should be obeyed. Held, first, that the Court had jurisdiction of the whole subject matter, and of the person of the petitioner, and that the process under which he was held was upon its face valid; second, that under the writ of habeas corpus, it is not competent to determine whether or not the order of the Court upon which the process was founded is or is not erroneous.

Per Sanderson, J.: The return shows that on the 20th of March, 1868, one Alfred Briggs recovered a judgment in the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, against the petitioner arid others, for the sum of three thousand six hundred and twelve dollars and twenty-eight cents, with costs taxed at six hundred and forty-five dollars and twenty-five cents, and that the same has never been reversed or modified, nor satisfied that on the 23d of March, 1868, Briggs caused an execution to he issued upon said judgment, directed to the Sheriff of Sutter County; that on the 15th day of May, 1868, Briggs made an affidavit before the Judge of the Sixth Judicial District, showing that the petitioner had certain property which he [99]refused to apply to the satisfaction of said execution, and that thereupon said Judge made an order requiring the petitioner to appear before a referee appointed for that purpose, at a time and place therein specified, and answer touching his property; that the petitioner appeared before the referee at the time and place appointed, and, upon examination, stated that on the 6th of July, 1868, he deposited with the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company the sum of two thousand nine hundred and thirty-three dollars, in United States gold coin, and took from said company an agreement of that date, called an Endowment Policy, whereby said company agreed to pay to him, or his assigns, on the 6th day of July, 1878, or sooner if he should die before that time, the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars, together with such dividends as may have accrued to him in the meantime, and that said policy was then in his possession; that, thereupon, the referee made an order directing the petitioner to deliver said policy to the Sheriff as property to be sold by him and applied in satisfaction of said judgment; that petitioner refused to obey the order of the referee, and that, thereupon, the latter reported his proceedings fully to the Judge of the Sixth Judicial District, and the refusal of the petitioner to obey his order; that, thereupon, the Judge of the Sixth Judicial District made an order, requiring the petitioner to show cause before him, at a given time and place, why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt and be proceeded against accordingly; that the proceedings had under this order resulted in a judgment declaring the petitioner guilty of contempt in not obeying the order of the referee; and it further appearing that said endowment policy was still in the possession of the petitioner, it was further ordered that he be confined in the County Jail of Sutter County until he should obey the order of the referee by delivering said policy to the Sheriff of said county; that the proper process was accordingly issued, and that the petitioner is now in the custody of the Sheriff* of Sutter County, under and by virtue thereof.

Ex parte McCullough

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief