Berry v. Hamill
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. This was an action on the case, ‘brought by Peter L. Berry, the plaintiff in error, against Henry H. Hamill, the defendant in error, in the District. Court for the city and county .of Philadelphia.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. This was an action on the case, ‘brought by Peter L. Berry, the plaintiff in error, against Henry H. Hamill, the defendant in error, in the District. Court for the city and county .of Philadelphia. A verdict was entered, in favour of the plaintiff, for one hundred dollars damages, subject to the opinion of the court on the declaration, which was as follows: “ And whereas, by a certain act of the legislature of this state, passed the thirteenth day of April, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and seven, entitled a supplement to an act, entitled, ah act to regulate arbitrations and…
1Opinion of the Court
*212The opinion of the court was delivered by
Duncan, J.
The boundary between trespass m et armis and trespass on the case, is frequently a very narrow one. But all the authorities, both ancient and modern, agree in this, — that if the injurious act be the immediate result of the force applied by the defendant, and the plaintiff be injured by it, it is the subject of an action of trespass vi et armis. Now, the grievance here, was not the issuing of an irregular writ, but its execution, and the imprisonment of the plaintiff: it is simply an action of false imprisonment. It was a misfeazance — a…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Day v. SharpSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839