Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.
18 How. 272 (1855)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Due process of law does not exclusively require a judicial proceeding. A summary administrative procedure to collect debts from public officers, if sanctioned by long-standing historical usage in English and American law, is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and does not violate the separation of powers.
Facts:
- Samuel Swartwout was the collector of customs for the port of New York for eight years prior to March 29, 1838.
- On November 10, 1838, an audit conducted by the first auditor and certified by the first comptroller of the Treasury determined that Swartwout owed the United States a balance of $1,374,119.
- Pursuant to an Act of Congress of 1820, the Solicitor of the Treasury issued a distress warrant to levy upon and seize Swartwout's property to satisfy the debt.
- The lien created by the government's levy under the distress warrant was established prior to a separate judgment lien obtained against Swartwout by the lessors of the plaintiff.
- On June 1, 1839, a U.S. Marshal, acting under the authority of the distress warrant, sold a parcel of Swartwout's land to the defendants' predecessor in title.
- The plaintiffs claimed title to the same land under the levy of an execution dated April 10, 1839, creating a dispute over who held superior title.
Procedural Posture:
- The lessors of the plaintiff brought an action of ejectment in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey against the Hoboken Land and Improvement Company.
- During the trial, the circuit court judges were divided in their opinion on the central legal question regarding the constitutionality of the distress warrant.
- The Circuit Court certified the question of whether the distress warrant and the proceedings under it were sufficient to transfer title to the property to the Supreme Court of the United States for resolution.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a summary proceeding, authorized by an act of Congress, that allows the Treasury Department to issue a distress warrant to seize and sell the property of a defaulting public revenue collector without a prior judicial hearing, violate the separation of powers doctrine or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Curtis
No, the summary proceeding authorized by the Act of 1820 does not violate the separation of powers or the Due Process Clause. The Court reasoned that 'due process of law,' as used in the Fifth Amendment, is equivalent to the 'law of the land' in Magna Carta and does not necessitate a judicial proceeding in all cases. To determine if a process is 'due,' the Court looks first to the Constitution for any express prohibitions and, finding none, then to the settled usages and modes of proceeding in English and early American common and statute law. Historically, both England and the American states employed summary, non-judicial methods to recover debts from public revenue collectors. This long-standing practice demonstrates that such a procedure is consistent with the 'law of the land.' Furthermore, the auditing of an account and issuance of a warrant is not an exercise of 'judicial power' reserved exclusively for Article III courts. It concerns a matter of 'public right' which Congress may choose to resolve through an administrative process, subject to potential (but not required) subsequent judicial review.
Analysis:
This is a foundational case in administrative law and procedural due process. It establishes that the requirements of due process are flexible and context-dependent, rather than a rigid command for a full judicial trial. By grounding its analysis in historical practice, the Court created a framework for upholding summary administrative actions, particularly in the realm of public revenue and benefits. The decision's distinction between 'public rights' (disputes between the government and individuals) and 'private rights' became crucial for justifying the adjudication of certain claims by administrative agencies, thereby legitimizing the growth of the administrative state without running afoul of Article III's vesting of judicial power in the courts.
Unlock the full brief for Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.