Luddington v. Peck
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was an action of trespass vi et armis, for an assault ami false imprisonment, tried at Mew-Haven, August term, 1818, before Swift, Ch. J., and Brdinard and Chapman, Js.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass vi et armis, for an assault ami false imprisonment, tried at Mew-Haven, August term, 1818, before Swift, Ch. J., and Brdinard and Chapman, Js. On the trial, the plaintiff proved, that he had been imprisoned, by Moses 8, Beach, a deputy sheriff, on an execution ip favour of the defendant, against the plaintiff, issued on a judgment of the Mew-Haven county court; that the defendant delivered the execution, on which there were some partial endorsements, to the officer, after the term originally limited for its return, had expired, with directions to procure it to…
1Opinion of the Court
Swift, Ch. .T.
Trespass will not lie for an act done tinder a legal process, regularly issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction. Case only will lie; and that: on the ground of malice, and want of probable cause.
Trespass will lie only in cases where the process is irregular, and void upon the face of it. The question, then, iri this case, is, whether the execution, by force of which the plaintiff was imprisoned, was regularly issued upon a valid judgment ?
The judgment was properly rendered between the parties, and, on the face, of the record, appeared to be unreversed and unsatisfied. The…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Hunt v. LoucksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Outlaw v. City of MeridenConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Whipple v. FullerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
- Blalock v. RandallIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Duckworth v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.