Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Thompson v. Allen Company — Opinion of the Court

To appoint a marshal or a sheriff to execute the process of a court to enforce the judgment of that court is not such a wide departure from the judicial function as to appoint a receiver to collect taxes, but no case has been cited of the exercise of even the former power by the court, much less the appointment, by a court of chancery, of an officer to execute the processes of a court of law.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Thompson v. Allen Company — Opinion of the Court

That the court below, sitting in equity,-after it has given a judgment at law for money, and after a return of nulla bona against the debtor,-may not lay hold of moneys, set apart, by the act of the debtor, in the hands of individuals exclusively for the payment of that judgment-and which money, the parties agree, cannot be otherwise reached than by being brought into that court, under its orders,-is a confession of helplessness on the part of the courts of the United States that I am unwilling to make.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Thompson v. Allen Company — Opinion of the Court

A court of equity cannot, by averring there is a right but no remedy known to the law, create a remedy in violation of law, or even without the authority of law. It acts upon established principles not only, but through established channels.' The court also said the power to direct a tax to be levied is the highest attribute of sovereignty, and is exercised by legislative authority only. It is a power that has not been extended to the judiciary.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature