The Case of the Marshalsea
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 77 E.R. 1027
King's Bench Division
[68 b] the case of the marshalsea. Mich. 10 Jacobi 1. The Court of the Marshalsea has no jurisdiction in ossumpsit, where neither the plaintiff nor defendant is of the King's Household. And if in such case judgment has been obtained against the principal, and one of the bail is arrested by process out of the Marshalsea, such bail may maintain an action for false imprisonment against the party who sued, the Marshal who directed the execution of the process, and the officer who executed the same. What jurisdiction the Court of Marshalsea had at the common law before the Act "Articuli super Chartas," and in what actions, and to what places and persons their jurisdiction extended. () Co. Lit. 338. a. 2 Roll. 496. Ant. 52. b. Call. 74. Perk. sect. 617. 14 H. 8. 15. a. Br. Lease 14. 2 Roll. Rep. 406. 6 Co. 69. b. 37 H. 8. 18. a. b. 194. b. Br. Surrender 14. 35. 2 Co. 17. b. 7 Co. 38. a. Kel. 70. b. 21 H. 7. 5. a. b. Br. Kstopel 210. (b) 11 Co. 11. a. 8 Co. 56. a. 167. a. 77. a. Kel. 175. a. 198. a. 3 Leon. 243. 2 Sid. 141. 2 Roll. 200. Plo. 32. a. 126. a. 143. b. Hard. 500. Fitz. Grant 29. Br. Exemp. 9. 1 Co. 49. a. 2 R. 3. 4. a. b. (c) 2 Roll. 200. 6 Co. 6. a. 3 Bui. 6. 2 Inst. 497. (tl) 2 Roll. 199. (e) 2 Roll. 206. (/ò') Hob. 222. Plow. 455. a. 5 Co. 94. a. ( l) 5 Co. 93. b. 1 Co. 43. b. Moor 393. 2 Roll. Rep. 173. Davis 40. Hob. 204. 3 Keb. 414. Style 189. Hard. 499. Lane 11. 1028 THE CASE OF THE MARSHALSEA 10 CO. REP. 69 a. When a Court has jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds inverso en-dine or erroneously, no action lies against the party who sues, or the officer or minister of the Court, who executes the precept or process of the Court; but when the Court haa not jurisdiction of the cause, the whole proceeding is coram non judice, and an action will lie against them, without any regard of the precept or process. *0f the action of assumpsit* S. C. [1 Brownl. 199. 2 Brownl. 124], 2 Inst. 462. 548. 4 Inst. 130. 1 Bulstr. 207. Carthew 190. Skinner 445. 470, &c. Rep. Q. A. 105. Eichard Hall brought an action of trespass of assault, battery, wounding and false imprisonment against William Stanley, William Richardson, and Roger Canto, that they 1 Jan. anno 7 Jacobi Regis, did assault, beat, wound, and imprison, and in prison detain for the space of three months, &c. The defendants as to all the trespass, but the aasault and imprisonment, and detaining of him in prison, pleaded not guilty ; and as to the said assault arid imprisonment, &c. the said William Stanley and William Richardson said, iriuxl Curia dom' Eegis, vocat' Curia Marixhalcm hospitii dom' Regis, uxt anti/[ua Cwia ipsius dom' Re.ijis et progenitorwu suormn regain Anglue, £ quod eadem Curia tenetur, c& a tenipore eujun contrar' memoria liomiuuin non enstit tenebatar, £ teneri consuevif infra virgam, &c. coram, Seneschallo Curia, Marisc/Mlciai £ Marischallo hospitii dam' Regis pro tempore ey.isteri, and that the same Court from time whereof, &c. had jurisdiction to hold pleas of trespass, and trespass on the case, infra hospitium pned' et infra virgam ejusdem hospitii fad' and by all the said time within the said Court there were tarn quidam Mariscall' Manschalda; hospitii pried' quiim quidam officiarii (de le Baston) of the staft', infra virgam hoxpitii didi dom' Regis, qui quuiem Marischall', Mansc/Mldie hospitii prce.d' et officiarii of the staff pro tempore Ktisteri sunt et per totum idem tempus fuerunt officiarii et ministri Cur' pned' et quod omnia brevia & pra'cepta ejusdem Cur' dirigenda sunt, et per totum tempus pned' direct' & dirigi usitat' fuerunt eidem Marischallo Marisehalci/i', quod ipse idem Marischall' Marischalr.it!' per se & pned' officiarii of the staft', c& per cjus tnandat' are, tenus [69 a] fact', habent i& a, toto te.mpitre mipradicf habuer' & habere cansuever' executionern cfc retorn' omnium & omnimodm'urn brevium, piwccpf & warrant quorumcunquti a Curia pned' emanan' Marischallo Marischalcue pned' direct'; & iidem Williel', Willid', et Royerus utienus dicunt quod in Curia pned' habetur & toto tempore supradicto habeliatur talis co'nsuetudo, viz. quod si aliqua persona existent def in aliquo placito transgr' in eadem Curia penden' & in ntstodiA Marischalli Mar' Hospitii exixten' fuit tradit' in ball', and prescribed to let the defendant to bail; and that the said William Richardson before the trespass,. and yet is Marshal of the Marshalsea of the honshold, and the said William Stanley, officer of the staff, and the said Roger Cante before the trespass, xc. 21 Jan. 5 Jac. Reg. in the said Court of Marshalsea of the houshold, before Thomas Warre, Esq. then Steward of the said Court, and Thomas Vavasor, Knight, then Marshal of the said houshold at Southwark, within the county of Surry, within the verge, &c. exhibited a bill against one Thomas Ownstead then in the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsea of the said houshold, of a plea of trespass upon the case, and declared, that the said Thomas was indebted to the said Roger in 801. for divers sums of money by the said Thomas to the said Roger clue, and so being indebted to the said Thomas 1 Jan. 5 Jac. Reg. at Islington within the verge (a) promised to pay the said Roger the said 801. upon request, which he had not done, &c. whereupon the said Thomas was let to bail, and the said Richard Hall and one Richard Petty became his bail: to which declaration the said Thomas Ownstead pleaded non assumpsit, &c. which issue was tried for the plaintiff, and damages and costs assessed, whereupon the plaintiff in the same Court had judgment, the plaintiff' upon that judgment sued forth a precept in the nature of a cap' against the said Thomas Ownstead, directed to the Marshal of the Marshalaea of the houshold, who returned non e4 inventua; whereupon the then plaintiff sued forth a precept in the nature of a cap'. to take the body of the said Thomas Ownstead, or of Richard Hall and Richard (a) Where a party who was plaintiff below justifies under process of an Inferior Court, it is necessary to set forth in his plea that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court. Evans v. Munkley, 4 Taunt. 48. and vid. Briscoe v. Stephens* 2 Bing. 213. 10 CO. REP. 69 b. THE CASE OF THE MARSHALSEA 1029 Petty, according to the custom of the said Court, ad satiifaciend', £c. directed to the Marshal of the Marshalsea of the said houshold, by force whereof the said Marshal of the Marshalsea ore tenus commanded the said William Stanley to execute the said writ, by virtue whereof he arrested infra virgam, &n. the body of the said Richard Hall, and delivered him to the said William Eichardson, Marshal, &c. in execution, &c. who detained him in the prison of the Marshalsea at Southwark infra virgam in execution, &c. The plaintiff replied and said, quod nee pried' Eogerus Cante in plarito pnvd' querens ner, prcedid' Thomas Ownstead in pladto prcedicto def tempore exhibilionis billce prcedid, fuit nervus seu servi dicti dmnini Regis [69 b] sen de hospitio suo prced' existen', &c. Upon which the defendants did demur in law. And this case was often argued at the Bar, and two points were moved. 1. Whether au action upon the case upon assumpsit for payment of a debt being made within the verge, be within the jurisdiction of the Court of Marshalsea. '2. Admitting that it be not, then if the defendants having the warrant of the said Court, shall be punished for a false imprisonment, or not. And much was said by them who were of counsel with the Court of Marshalsea; for the antiquity, honour, and jurisdiction of the Court of Marshalsea ; for the antiquity, that it is as ancient as any of the King's Courts, as appears in 4 H. 6. 8. b. and Diversity of Courts, tit. Marshalsea: for the honour, that Fleta. lib. 2. cap. 2. next after the High Court of Parliament, adds, habet d Guriam mam coram Senescallo suo in aulA mul, &c. and Britton, cap. 1. (which is in the book, spoken in the person of the King) begina with the Court of Marshalsea before any other, in these words, And that the Marshal of our Household hold our place within the verge, &c. And we will, that the Earl of Norfolk by himself or by another knight, be attendant to us and our Steward, to do our commands, and the attachments and executions of our judgments and of our steward, through the verge of our houshold; wherein it was also observed for the honour of the Court, that the Judges hold the King's place, and that a man of such dignity as the Earl of Norfolk, is attendant to the said Court; and they further said, that this Court was of so high a jurisdiction, that before the statute of 5 E. 3. cap. 2. and 10 E. 3. cap. 2. no writ of error lay of any judgment there given, but in Parliament : and by the same statutes their errors shall be examined and redressed iu tho King's Bench. And, as it appears by Fleta, this Court of ancient time, for the greater honour thereof, was held in aulA Regis, within tho hall of the King's honourable houshold. And as to the jurisdiction, they said, that before the statute of Articuli super Chartas, cap. 3. the Court of Marshalsea had jurisdiction within the verge of pleas of the Crown or criminal causes, and of all common pleas, real, personal and mixed, and that before the said statute, the Steward and Marshal of the King's Houshold used to hold all the pleas aforesaid within the verge, although none of the parties were of the King's Houshold, and now the said Act has restrained them to three actions only, .;. contracts, covenants, and trespasses, and that in three distinct manners, sc. In contracts and covenants, when both are of the houshold. 2. In trespass, when either party [70 a] is of the houshold. 3. Of other trespasses clone within the verge, when neither of the parties is of the houshold, and that stands with the words of the said Act, sc. " but only of trespass of the houshold, and of other trespasses done...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connelly v Wallace and Others
... ... The two orders made by the Circuit Court Judge were put in evidence by the plaintiff. Eventually the President withdrew the case from the jury and directed a verdict for all the defendants. The plaintiff applied to the Supreme Court for a new trial. Held by the ... This contention, indeed, ignores the distinction, old even in the days of Coke, who says in his report of The Case of the Marshalsea (1) :"And a difference was taken when a Court has jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds inverso ordine or erroneously, there the party who sues, ... ...
-
R v Manchester City Magistrates' Court, ex parte Davies
...39 In the first category are cases where the justices do not have "jurisdiction of the cause"—to use the phrase of Lord Coke in the Marshalsea case (1613) 10 Co. Rep. 68b at p.76a. A simple example of a case in this category is provided by Houlden v. Smith (1850) 14 Q.B. 841 where the plain......
-
Re McC. (A Minor)
...it was apparent from the facts before the court that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings at all. As in the Case of the Marshalsea (1613) 10 Co.Rep. 68b the court had no jurisdiction over the person, so in Houlden v. Smith it had no jurisdiction over the place, in Poll......
-
R v Head
... ... Viscount Simonds My Lords, ... 1 The facts of this case are fully set out in the opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Tucker. I will not occupy time by stating them myself, though I am conscious ... Order had been outside the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State altogether, it would have been a nullity and void, see the Case of the Marshalsea , 10 Co. Rep. 68b ... But that is not this case. The most that appears here is that the Secretary of State—acting within his ... ...
-
Conduct of laws: native title, responsibility, and some limits of jurisdictional thinking.
...Concerning the Jurisdiction of Courts (Lee and Pakeman, 1648) preface. See also The Case of the Marshalsea (1612) 10 Co Rep 68b, 73a; 77 ER 1027, 1033 (Coke CJ). Coke himself excerpted this quote from the mediaeval jurist Azo. However, when he did so, Coke left out a few words at the end: '......