Captain Parker v Lord Clive
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 1769 |
| Date | 26 April 1769 |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 267
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, R. v. Cuming, 1887, 19 Q. B. D. 16.
[2419] captain parker ver. lord clive. Wednesday, 26th April, 1769. Military officers in E. I. Co.'s service cannot resign when they please. [Referred to, E. v. Cuming, 1887, 19 Q. B. D. 16.] This was an action brought by an officer in the military service of the East India Company, against the defendant, who was commander in chief of their forces in India, for an assault and false imprisonment. The transaction arose in the East Indies, upon a dispute about a perquisite called batta, which had been received by former military officers there; but was thought proper, by Lord Clive, to be discontinued in future, or at least considerably lessened. The officers were exceedingly dissatisfied with this reduction of their pay or perquisite, which had been allowed to their predecessors ; and resented it so highly, that about 175 of them threw up their commissions and quitted the service; of which number Captain Parker was one. Whereupon Lord Clive, as commander in chief, imprisoned 268 PARKER V. CLIYE 4 BUER. 2420. him; and he was kept four months in custody ; but a court martial being called upon the occasion, he was tried by it, and acquitted : as they apprehended him to have a right to resign his commission and quit the service. Lord Mansfield, before whom the cause was tried, held that these military officers in the service of the East India Company were not at liberty to resign their commissions, and quit the service, at any time and under any circumstances, merely ad libitum, whenever they themselves should think fit or be so inclined. If that were the case, then indeed it would follow, that after resigning their commission, and thereby ceasing to be objects of military jurisdiction, Lord Clive could no longer have any power over them. This is the true question, in the present case...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Re Opai Kunangel Amin [1991] PNGLR 1; Supreme Court Reference No 2 of 1982; Re Kunangel; In the Matter of a Reference under s18(2) of the Constitution by and Independent Tribunal appointed pursuant to s27(7)(e) of the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership; and In the Matter of a reference by the Public Prosecutor pursuant to s27(2) of the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership in respect of Opai Kunangel Amin
...111 CLR 549, Marshall v English Electric Co Ltd [1945] 1 All ER 653, Morris v M'Cullock (1763) Amb 432; 27 ER 289, Parker v Lord Clive (1769) 4 Burr 2419; 98 ER 267, The State v Independent Tribunal; Ex parte Sasakila [1976] PNGLR 491, Vertue v Lord Clive (1769) 4 Burr 2472; 98 ER 296, Wale......
-
The State v Officer–in–Charge of the Wabag Corrective Institution and the Magistrates of the Kundis Village Court; Ex Parte Pende Kinakope [1982] PNGLR 308; SCR No 6 of 1981; State v OIC Wabag Corrective Institution [1982] PNGLR 308
...111 CLR 549. Marshall v English Electric Co Ltd [1945] 1 All ER 653. Morris v M'Cullock (1763) Amb 432; 27 ER 289. Parker v Lord Clive (1769) 4 Burr 2419; 98 ER 267. State, The v Independent Tribunal; Ex parte Sasakila [1976] PNGLR 491. Vertue v Lord Clive (1769) 4 Burr 2472; 98 ER 296. Wal......
-
R v Cuming
...of the applicant before he had been brought to trial by the proper tribunal, viz. a court-martial: see Reg. v. MountF5Parker v. Lord CliveENR 4 Burr. 2419 Vertue v. Lord CliveENR 4 Burr. 2472 Reg. v. MountUNKUNK 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 279 44 L. J. 58, P. C. L. Rep. 6 P. C. 283 Naval Discipline......
