Hecker v. Jarret
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
has1?'a Supposing a smgle judge of the Common ' Pleas to have a right upon a habeas corpus to fendantfwhois" in execution from^hatTcourt still if he does ’ tice to the plain tiff, the pro- and^hfdefend' ant may be i;e-taken m execu- S¿u.
Read the full summary
has1?'a Supposing a smgle judge of the Common ' Pleas to have a right upon a habeas corpus to fendantfwhois" in execution from^hatTcourt still if he does ’ tice to the plain tiff, the pro- and^hfdefend' ant may be i;e-taken m execu- S¿u. Whether ofa defendant in consequence by a amount to a voit rSpe^ctsíh^8 sheriff? upon\effi^ first taken in execushew property to the officer sa” levy forle the debt, and he iUegallydis-S charged and re-same execution, an offer to shew property is then too late. Whether the acknowledgment of a deputy sheriff of things done by him in the course of his office,…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
after stating the case, delivered his opinion as follows:
The plaintiff’s counsel have made four points in the argument before this court.
1 .That the execution issued against the defendant was void, and therefore the sheriff was a trespasser in executing it.
2. That Judge Cooper had a right to discharge the now plaintiff on the habeas corpus, and therefore the sheriff was a trespasser when he retook him.
3. That if the judge had no right to discharge from the execution, the sheriff was guilty of a voluntary escape, in permitting the now plaintiff to go at large, and therefore could…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ShepherdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1814
- Rodgers v. EvansSupreme Court of Georgia · 1850
- Kingsbury v. LedyardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Fall Creek Coal & Iron Company v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1872