Wayman v. Southard
6 L. Ed. 253, 10 Wheat. 1, 23 U.S. 1 (1825)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Process Acts passed by Congress establish the procedural rules for executing judgments in federal courts, adopting state procedures as they existed in 1789. Subsequent state laws that alter these procedures do not apply to the execution of judgments from federal courts.
Facts:
- Wayman and another individual obtained a money judgment against Southard and another individual in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky.
- The federal court issued a writ of fieri facias, a type of execution, based on this judgment.
- The writ was delivered to the United States Marshal for the District of Kentucky to be executed.
- After the passage of the federal Process Act of 1792, the Kentucky legislature enacted new laws that governed the execution of judgments.
- These Kentucky laws required, among other things, that property sold under execution be sold on credit unless the plaintiff consented to receive notes from the Bank of Kentucky.
- The U.S. Marshal proceeded to execute the judgment in accordance with these recent Kentucky statutes, prompting a dispute over which set of laws—federal or state—should govern his conduct.
Procedural Posture:
- Wayman sued Southard in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky.
- The Circuit Court rendered a judgment in favor of Wayman.
- A writ of execution was issued to the U.S. Marshal to enforce the judgment.
- A dispute arose regarding whether the Marshal was required to follow recent Kentucky state laws governing executions or the federal procedures derived from older state laws.
- The judges of the U.S. Circuit Court were divided in their opinion on this question.
- The Circuit Court certified the question of which law applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for a decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do state laws concerning the execution of judgments, enacted after the passage of the federal Process Acts, govern the execution of judgments rendered by federal courts?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Marshall
No, state laws enacted after 1789 do not govern the execution of judgments from federal courts. The U.S. Constitution, through the Necessary and Proper Clause, grants Congress the power to make all laws necessary for carrying into execution the judgments of the federal judiciary. Congress exercised this power by passing the Process Acts of 1789 and 1792, which established that the 'forms and modes of proceeding' in federal common law suits should be the same as those used in the respective states in 1789. This adoption of state law was static and did not incorporate subsequent changes made by state legislatures. The Process Acts also constitutionally delegated to the federal courts themselves the authority to alter these rules, demonstrating Congress's intent to create a uniform and independent federal procedure, not one subject to ongoing state legislative control. The Rules of Decision Act (Section 34 of the Judiciary Act) does not apply because it governs the substantive rules for forming a judgment in 'trials at common law,' not the ministerial process of executing that judgment.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision establishing the procedural independence of the federal judiciary from state legislatures. It clarifies that while federal procedure may be based on state law, it is Congress, not the states, that controls the rules of federal courts. The decision firmly limits the scope of the Rules of Decision Act to substantive law, creating a clear distinction between substance (governed by state law in certain cases) and procedure (governed by federal law). This holding prevents states from obstructing or frustrating the enforcement of federal court judgments and ensures a degree of national uniformity in federal court practice.
