Hall v Hawkins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 1556
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 7 Dowl. P. C. 200; 1 H. 448; 8 L. J. Ex. 87; 5 Jur. 106.
HALL v. hawkins. Exch. of Pleas. 1839.-Where a defendant was arrested under an attachment out of the Court of Chancery for nonpayment of costs, and a capias utlagatum out of this Court, at the suit of the same party who was the plaintiff in the equity suit, was on the same day lodged with the sheriff; and the arrest under the attachment was afterwards set aside by the Court of Chancery, for irregularity :-Held, that the defendant was entitled to be discharged as to the capias utlagatum also. [S. C. 7 Dowl. P. C. 200; 1 H. & H. 448; 8 L. J. Ex. 87 ; 5 Jur. 106.] R. V. Richards had obtained a rule to shew cause why the defendant should not beidischargedj out of custody, and why the proceedings in outlawry taken against him shibuld not be set aside. It appeared from the affidavits, that an attachment had issued out of the Court of Chancery against tte defendant, for non-payment of costs in a suit in that Court instituted against him by the present plaintiff; and the defendant was taken under that attachment. On the same day, a capias utlagatum was issued out of this Court against the defendant in this cause, and lodged with the sheriff.- The arrest under the attachment was afterwards set aside by an order of the Master of the Eolls, for irregularity. Under these circumstances, it was contended that the plaintiff, at whose suit the irregular process had issued, could not avail himself of the subsequent detainer. Barstow shewed cause. Two questions arise in this case; first, whether the detainer of the defendant, on the process out of this Court, was legal; next, if it was, 4M. *W.591. WATSON U.CARROLL ] 557 whether the defendant is entitled to his discharge g& being in custody on raesne process, and if so, on what terms 1 Now the terms ,f the order of the Master of the Kolls shew [591] that the process under which the Defendant was taken was irregular only, and did not therefore render the arrest ille^,]. That being so, it is clear that the subsequent detainer would not be avoided t^ereby( if it were at the suit of a different plaintiff; Barmtt v. Price (9 Bing. 566 ; } M. & Scott, 634); the question is, whether that is so where it i\s at the suit of thesame party. Now the custody was at the time legal, although iivegular as regarded the plaintiff. Where a defendant is discharged from legal custt'dy, whether civil Or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against David Jones
...Yewens. (a) It is not thought necessary to report this case more fully. (i)a See Pearson v. Yewens, 5 New Ca. 489, 567 ; Hall v. Hawkins, 4 M. & W. 590; Watson v. Carroll, 4 M. & W. 592; Robinson v. Yewens, 5 M. & W. 149. 10 AD. ft E. 576. THE QUEEN t'. JONES 219 ciently set forth the cause......