Smith v. Whildin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia. Jan. 29. Assumpsit on the common counts. The plaintiff, who was a constable in Philadelphia, proved that the defendant had offered him a reward of f>100 for the arrest of one M. Crossin, against whom warrants had been issued on a charge for obtaining goods under false pretences. Under one of these warrants M. Crossin was arrested, in Philadelphia, by plaintiff’s deputy.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia. Jan. 29. Assumpsit on the common counts. The plaintiff, who was a constable in Philadelphia, proved that the defendant had offered him a reward of f>100 for the arrest of one M. Crossin, against whom warrants had been issued on a charge for obtaining goods under false pretences. Under one of these warrants M. Crossin was arrested, in Philadelphia, by plaintiff’s deputy. Campbell, J., told the jury the only question was, whether the plaintiff made the promise ?
1Opinion of the Court
Coulter, J.,
(after stating the case.) — There was no consideration for the promise, and the court below therefore misconceived the law. It is the duty of a constable to pursue, search for, and arrest offenders against whom criminal process is put into his hands. It is stated in Com. Digest, title Justice of the Peace, B. 79, that the duty of a constable requires him to do his utmost to discover, pursue, and arrest felons. The office of constable is created not for the private emolument of the holder; but to conserve the public peace, and to execute the criminal law of the country. He is not…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LaneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Bennett v. GerkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1933
- Barry v. Gvoic, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Beaver County1926
- Escheat on Information of State Employe, Pennsylvania Department of Justice1933
- Nasser v. County of Lackawanna, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County1980