Administrator of Whitcomb v. Cook
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action for false imprisonment with counts for assault and battery. Plea, the general issue and notice. Trial by jury, September Term, 1863, Kellogg, J., presiding. The plaintiff gave evidence showing an arrest of Cyrus Whitcomb upon a writ in favor of the defendant on the 1st of November, 1860, and the commitment of said Whitcomb to jail for want of bail.
Read the full summary
This was an action for false imprisonment with counts for assault and battery. Plea, the general issue and notice. Trial by jury, September Term, 1863, Kellogg, J., presiding. The plaintiff gave evidence showing an arrest of Cyrus Whitcomb upon a writ in favor of the defendant on the 1st of November, 1860, and the commitment of said Whitcomb to jail for want of bail. It was conceded there was no other assault and battery than the mere arrest upon said writ, and taking to the jail without any force or violence ; and the claim made was for damages for his detention in jail and his expenses…
1Opinion of the Court
*481The opinion of the*court was delivered by
Poland, Ch. J.
The first question presented by the defendant’s exceptions in this case is whether the action survived the death of the intestate, so as to be a legal ground of recovery by his administrator.
By the common law the death of either party to an action for the recovery of damages for a tort to the person, put an end to the action, and the same could not be prosecuted by or against the legal representative of the deceased party.
The general doctrine of the common law that torts die with the person, has been largely interfered with by modern…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Gibson v. HolmesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1905
- In re DurantSupreme Court of Vermont · 1887
- Coolbeth v. GoveSupreme Court of Vermont · 1937
- Bradley v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1879
- In re EdsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1912
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.