Crowley v Impey and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1819 |
| Date | 01 January 1819 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 640
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
crowley v. impey and others (Commissioners of bankrupt make a warrant for the commitment of a bankrupt tor refusing to be examined, the bankrupt being already confined in the King's Bench under previous process (semble), the issuing of the warrant by the commissioners does not amount to an imprisonment by them, till the warrant is in some way operative to the detention of the party independently of the other process But if the warrant operate to the confinement of the party within narrower bounds, it is an imprisonment by the commissioners ) This was an action for an assault and false imprisonment against the three defendants, who were commissioners under a commission of bankrupt against the plaintiff. The action was brought in order to try the validity of the commission The plaintiff had been committed under a warrant from the commissioners for not passing his examination on the 18th of June, 1816 But it appeared that he had been in custody in the King's Bench prison, from the 16th of April [262] preceding, under process of contempt and upon an action; and that the processes were still in force ab the time of the commitment under the warrant The warrant was produced by the marshal's clerk as a subsisting warrant Scarlett for the defendants, contended, that this was not evidence of any trespass or imprisonment by the defendants, since the plaintiff was in custody under other process, and could not be considered as in custody under the warrant until it had operated in some way or other to his imprisonment Gurney f r the plaintiff insisted that this was an imprisonment, the directions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coppinger v Bradley
...449. Dicas v. Lord Brougham 1 Moo. & Rob. 309. Simpson v. HillENR 1 Esp. 430. Arrowsmith v. Le Mesurier 2 New R. 211. Crowley v. ImpeyENR 2 Stark. 261. Blessley v. SlomanENR 3 Mees. & W. 40. Pococh v. Moore 1 Ry. & M. 321. Withers v. HenleyENR Cro. Jac. 379. Gyfford v. WoodgateENR 11 East, ......