Public Auction Part 2: The Sheriff's Sale

In the January 3, 1862 Washington Statesman, a "sheriff's sale" advertisement was featured as usual. A debtor defaulted on a loan and the Court ruled in favor of the creditor. This was followed by the not so surreptitious sheriff's sale. Personal assets were involved when the case was a business vs. individual citizen or an individual citizen vs. individual citizen. This 1862 issue announced the sale of John Buseanger's personal property after losing in Court to Christ Kirtz on December 16, 1861. The sale was "to satisfy said execution [from the Court], or so much thereof as may be necessary, and cost and interest, and all accruing interest, costs and charges." The sale had to be public and well advertised so that the victorious plaintiff could get as much money as possible. These sales served the purpose to get maximum financial proceeds to plaintiffs, such as Kirtz. 

The original amount owed was rarely the final amount, because the plaintiff would request payment for court costs and accrued interest. Although not necessarily granted, the sale would help defray court costs. The defendant could lose everything. The creditor received payment, if not a long-term client. The boom-bust cycles of American capitalism were as much a microeconomic as a macroeconomic phenomenon.

Image Source: Washington Secretary of State

Collections Rendered through Public Auction

Many collections cases were between companies, but some were between individual citizens. The sheriff's office held public auctions to satisfy some Court judgments on collections cases. The following example is between individual citizens. According to the Washington Statesman (January 3, 1862):

"on execution issued out of the district court of Walla Walla county, [...] founded on a judgment rendered in said court [...] in favor of Christ Kirtz and against John Buseanger and Henry Brown, for the sum of twelve hundred dollars and costs, taxed at one dollar, and interest, the following property, to-wit: Lot No. seven (7) in block No. four, (4) according to the plat of survey of the town of Walla Walla, and all buildings and improvements thereon."

In cases where the defendant lost, the Court ordered the sale of the defendant's property to satisfy the debt owed to the plaintiff. The stakes were higher for individual citizens because of their personal liability. Subsequently, flight risk increased, not least because of the rarity of a successful defense in collections matters. In A. H. Whitley v. John Monroe (1861), the defendant was accused of failing to pay for goods purchased on credit. Monroe hired law firm Cain, Bridges, & Gates. They cleverly argued that the case should be dismissed from the Court Docket because of a technicality of jurisdiction, and because "the Complaint is vague and uncertain." The Court rejected the defense firm's argument and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Once again, the plaintiff won another collections case. If the defendant did not pay according to the Court order, then he may face the loss of his personal assets, as the newspaper article above denotes.

Incidentally, Sheriff James Buckley features prominently in frontier Walla Walla. His signature is found on many documents served to defendants, including the Mullan Brothers cases. So, the sheriff was intricately involved in collections cases, from the summons of appearance to the auctioning of property if the defendant continued to default.