Withers v Henley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1791 |
| Date | 01 January 1791 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 79 E.R. 324
IN THE KING'S BENCH.
324 MICHAELMAS TERM, 13 JAC. 1. IN B. R. CRO.JAC. 380. case 7. withers against henley. Hilary Term, 12 Jac. 1. Roll False imprisonment lies against a sheriff if he detain a prisoner on mesue process, after a discharge by the plaintiff, or a supersedeas by the Court; for every detainer is a new imprisonment. Ante, 148. ò2 Inst. 55. 1 Roll. Rep. 141. Moor, 457. 2 Roll. Ab. 5. 3 Bulst. 97. F. N. B. 236. 1 Vent. 2. Dalt. Sh. 212. 4 Bac. Ab. 684, 685. Salk. 408. 2 Bl. Rep. 1055. 1168. Dougl. 671. 1 Ter. Rep. 536. To trespass of false imprisonment, if the defendant justify by virtue of a latitat, the plaintiff may reply, that the party suing out that writ commanded the sheriff to discharge him. Trespass ; for that on the 28th April, 10 Jac. 1. the defendant took and imprisoned him, and detained him there for the space of a month. The defendant justifies, because a writ out of the Exchequer issued to take the plaintiff and his lands, until he satisfied the King, &c.; and that such a sheriff of Somersetshire took the plaintiff in execution ; and that by virtue of a latitat, at the suit of one Robert Brown, he took the plaintiff, et in exitu ab of/icio left him in prison to Robert Henley, being sheriff, his successor, &c. which is the same imprisonment. The plaintiff replies as to the execution out of the Exchequer, and there was a supersedeas out of the same Court delivered to the defendant, qubd eu-m deliberaret si ea de causd et non alia fu.it imprisonaius: that as to his detainmetit upon the latitat, he pleaded that the said Robert Brown, the plaintiff in the said suit, commanded the sheriff to discharge him of his action before that his imprisonment, and made to the sheriff a release of that suit; and yet notwithstanding the defendant detained him. Upon this replication the defendant demurred. First, because it now appeareth, by the plaintiff's own shewing, that he was once lawfully imprisoned ; and although a supersedeas came after, admitting it were to be allowed by the sheriff, yet it cannot make the caption unlawful, but the detention only. And it was also moved, that the sheriff, although he hath a supersedeas, yet he is not bound under pain of false imprisonment to allow thereof ; but he may return the writ and the prisoner with the supersedeas, and the Court may discharge him : and therefore there is difference where the arrest is before the supersedeas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whyte v Nutting
...v. CreightonENR 5 C. & P. 393. Standage v. CreightonENR 5 C. & P. 406. Taylor v. WillansENR 2 B. & Ad. 845, 856. Withers v. HenleyENR Cro. Jac. 379. Sheriff — Fi. fa. — Postponement of sale — Solicitor for execution creditor — Managing clerk — Authority. Von, IL] Q. B. & EX. DIVISIONS. 241 ......
-
Coppinger v Bradley
...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, 297. Frost's case 5 Co. 89. Whalley v. PepperENR 7 C. & P. 506. Barratt v. PriceENR 9 Bing. 566. Collins v......
-
Martin against Francis
...it succeed, the effect of it will be, to extend the lien of the attorney to the person of the defendant. The ease of Withers v, Hensley.(Cro, Jac. 379), is however an authority to shew, that the sheriff was not only justified,, but that he was actually bound to discharge the defendant at th......
-
M'Combe v Gray
...Div. M'COMBE and GRAY. Withers v. HenleyENR Cro. Jac. 379. Aaron v. AlexanderENR 3 Camp. 35. Moone v. RoseELR L. R. 4 Q. B. 486; 17 W. R. 729. Re Thompson Estate, Nalty v. Aylett 43 L. J. Ch. 721. Greaves v. Keane 4 Ex. Div. 73; 27 W. R. 416. — Attachment —— Detention of prisoner after expi......