CRESSEY
v.
MEYER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A creditor of Louisiana sought to recover a debt owed to the state by garnishing the state's debtors, but the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on the grounds that the action was barred by laches and the statute of limitations. The Court held that even though a sovereign state may not be subject to limitations periods in its own courts, a creditor asserting claims on behalf of the state does not inherit the state's sovereign immunity from such defenses in federal court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court.
One proposition alone requires notice. This was an action by a creditor of the State not against-his debtor, but against its debtors, to secure an appropriation of their debts to it to the satisfaction of its obligations to him. It is a proceeding of a garnishee nature. The appearance of the State, voluntarily, its application to be made a party vnteresse suo, may avoid all questions as to the right of the plaintiff to maintain this suit. Conceding that such a suit is proper, it still remains in the nature of a personal action by one individual against another. As against such a suit, laches and limitations are in a court of equity sufficient defences. The settlement, which was practically between the State and its debtors, was made in 1847. Thirty-six years thereafter this bill is filed. If the time'for full payment given by the settlement of 1847 is subtracted, this suit was commenced nineteen years after the time fixed by that settlement for the last payment had passed. Limitation and laches forbid that this suit should be sustained. It may be that, as against the sovereign, no statutes of limitation run; and it may be that, in the courts of Louisiana, the State may enforce all obligations due to it no matter what period of .time may have intervened since they were assumed; but that right is personal to the sovereign; it does not pass to any of its creditors; and its intervention and appearance in a suit brought by a creditor, as against its debtors, does not give to such creditor its sovereign exemption from liability to the statute of limitation and the defence of laches. Whatever, therefore, might be true if the State of Louisiana were suing in its own courts, this suit must be treated in the federal courts as one by an individual against’ individuals; and, brought nineteen years after by the terms of settlement between the State and its creditors the last payment was due from them to it, must be adjudged a stale claim. The decisions of the Supreme Court of Louisiana are in accord with this conclusion. Association v. Lord, 85 La. Ann. 425. That case was the counterpart of this, and the final conclusion of that court was against the Tight to maintain the action and on the ground of the staleness of the claim. The fact that much litigation had intervened during these years, that bankruptcy proceedings were pending, avails nothing to this plaintiff, who was no party thereto.
The decree is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
San Pedro & Cañon del Agua Co. v. United States, 146 U.S. 120 (U.S. 1892)
-
Young v. S. Pac. Co., 34 F.2d 135 (2d Cir. 1929)…the long delay. Nothing in this bill suggests appellants’ connection with the Bogert Case, except the unsuccessful attempt to intervene. This prior litigation does not excuse the delay of the appellants, for they were not parties. Cressey v. Meyer, 138 U. S. 525, 11 S. Ct. 387, 34 L. Ed. 1018. During this long period, the bill alleges, the stock increased to great value. The reorganization agreement, attacked by the bill of complaint, shows that unsecured debt creditors were offered stock in the new company…1 / 2