Sedley v Sutherland and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 588
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
Disapproved, Green v. Elgie, 1843, 5 Q. B. 99
sedley v sutherland and others. (Tn a joint action of trespass, the plaintiff should go for one trespass done at the same time, in which all were implicated ; and if he goes for a trespass done at a time when all were not present he shall not afterwards be allowed to go for a time when they were ) [Disapproved, Green v. Elgie, 1843, 5 Q. B. 99 ] This was an action of assault and false imprisonment The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages against the several defendants following ; namely, The assignees of the estate of Nowlan, a bankrupt ; Messrs Crowder and Lavie, who were the solicitors under that commission , and the magistrates by whom the plaintiff was committed to prison. The ground of the present action was, the arrest and detention before stated in the cause of Sedley v Arbouin, ante, page 174 The plaintiff had been arrested in Dublin, the 16th of April, and continued m prison until the 10th of June fallowing. [203] Upon the case being opened, Lord Kenyon said, that he thought this action could not be maintained against the attorneys, unless it could be proved that they had gone beyond the line of their duty, by which the plaintiff had suffered That it would be a case of infinite hardship if an attorney, who wa instructed to use the most effectual means to secure parties suspected, should be subject to actions of trespass, in the fair discharge of his duty. Law said, that it had been decided, that an action of trespass for false imprisonment was maintainable against an attorney and his client, in the case of Barker v. Braham and Norwood, 3 Wils 368 ; but thathere he could prove acts of the attorneys, unconnected with their duty as attorneys ;-such as a letter written to Dublin, ordering the arrest Lord Kenyon said, he thought that circumstance only not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peacock v Bell and Kendal
...Saund. 101, n. (2). [As to the liability of the attorney as a trespasser, in respect of illegal process, see 3 Wils. 368, Barker v. Braham. 3 Esp. 202, Sedley v. Sutherland. 6 B. & C. 38, Bates v. Pilling. 9 D. & R. 44, S. C. 6 A. & E. 407, Sowell v. Champion. 2 Nev. & P. 627, S. C. 8 A. & ......
-
Green against Matthew Elgie and Toulmin
... ... defendant, as an attorney, was not liable unless he had gone beyond the line of his duty: Sedley v. Sutherland (3 Esp. N. P. C. 202). Patteson J., referring to that case in Codrington v. Lloyd (8 ... ...
-
Rundle against Little and another
...as in a case in Espinasse; but that would be under the general issue." The case alluded to seems to have been Sedley v. Sutherland (3 Esp. 202), where Lord Kenyon held that an action of false imprisonment did not lie against attorneys who had acted in causing the plaintiff to be arrested, "......
-
Thomas Murray v John Rose Byrne and John Talbot Byrne
...7 Q. B. 928. Carratt v. Morley 1 Q. B. 18. West v. SmallwoodENR 3 M. & W. 418. Miller v. SeareUNK 2 Wm. Bl. 1141. Sedley v. SutherlandENR 3 Esp. 202. The King v. DanserENR 6 T. R. 242. Brown v. ChapmanENR 6 C. B. 365. Barker v. St. QuintinENR 12 M. & W. 450. Parsons v. Loyd 3 Wils. 344. Bra......