Scoggin v. Taylor
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court. The writ of ne exeat having been issued by the master in chancery, was void, and will not justify the acts of the party who caused it to be issued. [Kennedy Ex parte, 6 Eng. 598.) A ne exeat, as well as an injunction, is a writ issuing by order of the court of chancery. (2 Sto.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court. The writ of ne exeat having been issued by the master in chancery, was void, and will not justify the acts of the party who caused it to be issued. [Kennedy Ex parte, 6 Eng. 598.) A ne exeat, as well as an injunction, is a writ issuing by order of the court of chancery. (2 Sto. Eq. 685.) Either of the writs can issue without a judicial order or sentence allowing them; and as a master in chancery cannot grant an injunction, as decided in Remiedy Ex parte, so neither can he issue, of his own order, a writ of ne exeat. The statute abolishing imprisonment for…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Walker
This was an action of trespass, vi et armis instituted by Scog-gin against William J. and George W. Taylor, for arresting and imprisoning him. The defendants justified the imprisonment of the plaintiff under a writ of ne exeat issued at their instance, by a master in chancery. To this defence, the plaintiff demurred upon the ground that the master in chancery had no power to issue such writ, because there was no statute in force authorizing him to do so, and also because, admitting such statute to exist, the power to hear a bill for ne exeat, to determine the sufficiency ■of the application,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hearn v. AyresSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906