Abstract

The Anglo-Saxon system of debt collection has frequently been described as one of "grab law" where the race is to the swift. He who grabs last may find himself with an empty fist. A number of methods are available for making the grab. Unsecured creditors, under one of a variety of legal writs, may have the sheriff levy on property of the debtor. Secured creditors may repossess their collateral, with or without judicial proceedings. Many of these creditors' remedies—and, in particular, many of the prejudgment remedies—find their antecedents in English practices. This in itself is not surprising. But many of those English practices date back to a very early and, from the debtor's viewpoint, rigorous time, and some of them we have continued to nourish long after they were abandoned by the English.

One decision, Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., has proven to be the turning point from which each of these archaic remedies must be reassessed and redirected, or in some cases discarded. This article will evaluate Sniadach and the cases interpreting and expanding it. The impact of the decision upon the remedies of attachment, replevin, cognovit, repossession and distraint, and imprisonment for debt will be considered.

How to Cite