Barratt v Price
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1833 |
| Date | 17 January 1833 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 726
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 2 L. J. C. P. 56. Approved, Hooper v. Lane, 1857, 6 H. L. C. 554.
baekatt v. price. Jan. 17, 1833t [S. C. 2 L. J. C. P. 56. Approved, Hooper v. Lane, 1857, 6 H. L. C. 554.] Where a sheriff has illegally arrested a Defendant in one action, he cannot detain him in another. The question in this case was, whether the Defendant was entitled to be discharged out of custody in this action, he having been detained by the sheriffs of London under a ca. sa. issued at the suit of the Plaintiff, which had been lodged with them before the time of their arresting the Defendant upon mesne process issued at the suit of another plaintiff. The arrest in the former action had been made by one Bichard Jackson, the son and assistant of William Jackson, one of the Serjeants at mace to the sheriffs of London. At the time of such arrest the warrant was held by W. Jackson, to whom it was directed, not by Eicbard Jackson; but after Eichard Jackson had arrested the Defendant without any warrant, he delivered him into the custody of a police officer under a false charge of felony, and then brought his father to the police station, and the father, by handing the warrant over to the son, endeavoured by fraud to make the arrest appear to have been legal. On the ground of such fraud on the part of the sheriffs officer, and his son, one of the learned Judges, on an application made before .him in [567] vacation, ordered the Defendant to be discharged from that arrest. But the Defendant being detained under the ca. sa. issued by Barratt, Wilde Serjt. obtained a rule nisi to discharge him from this detainer, on the ground that the apprehension by the sheriff in the former action being illegal, the same sheriff -could not justify a subsequent detainer. Bompas Serjt., who shewed cause, relied on Howson v. Walker, and Growden v. Walker (2 W. Blk. 823). There it appeared that one Herne had got over some pales and thrown up the sash of the defendant's window, to get into the house, and afterwards broke open an inner door, in order to arrest him; and all this without any warrant directed to himself; and accordingly did arrest the defendant at the suit of Howson. The plaintiff's attorney being sent for, and finding Herne's mistake and irregularity, sent for one William Howse, to whom the warrant was really directed, .and gave him charge of the defendant; and Howse having another writ against him at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coppinger v Bradley
...Cro. Jac. 379. Gyfford v. WoodgateENR 11 East, 297. Frost's case 5 Co. 89. Whalley v. PepperENR 7 C. & P. 506. Barratt v. PriceENR 9 Bing. 566. Collins v. YewensENR 10 Ad. & El. 570. Robinson v. YewensENR 5 M. & W. 149; S. C. 7 Dowl. 380. Jackson v. HumphrysENR 1 Salk. 273. Benton v. Sutton......
-
The National Assurance and Investment Association v Best
...sheriffs officer is only his agent where, from the necessity of the case, the sheriff cannot act The doctrine laid down in Baimtt v. Pnce (9 Bing. 566), that an arrest under one writ operates as an arrest under all writs then in the sheriff's hands against the same defendant, was recognised......
-
KELLY v BIRCH. [Chancery.]
...KELLY and BIRCH. Wells v. GurneyENR 8 B. & C. 769. Birch v. ProdgerUNK 1 N. R. 135. Barratt v. PriceENR 9 Bing. 566. Amsinck v. Barklay 8 Ves. 594. Buckmaster v. Cox 2 Ir. Law Rep. 101. Goodwin v. Lorden 3 N. & M. 879; S. C. 1 A. & E. 378. 466 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1854. Chanemtg. KELLY v. BIRC......