Wright v. Hazen
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action on the case for false imprisonment. The defendants plead — first, the general issue, and secondly, a plea in bar — that defendants in this suit caused the plaintiff to be committed by virtue of legal process, and that defendant Gordon was a justice of the peace, &c.
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case for false imprisonment. The defendants plead — first, the general issue, and secondly, a plea in bar — that defendants in this suit caused the plaintiff to be committed by virtue of legal process, and that defendant Gordon was a justice of the peace, &c. The plaintiff, in his replication, replied that said writ was issued without the requisite formalities, and that the plaintiff, in this action, was a resident citizen of this State at the time of his committal upon said process. The defendants, in their rejoinders, replied that the plaintiff ought to be estopped…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
To state tbe points involved in this case in tbe briefest manner, it appears to us,
1. Tbat tbe estoppel relied upon by tbe defendant, who was a party to the original suit, is conclusive as to him, and when replied by him separately, is available. But it can only defeat the plaintiff’s replication, and thus leave tbe defense to stand upon tbe defendants’ plea.
2. Tbe plea of this party, Iiazen, it seems to us is defective, in not containing an allegation, that tbe plaintiff here, at the time of praying out process,’in tbe original action against him, was a nonresident. Tbe common…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Ex parte KearnyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Dunnett v. Shields and ConantSupreme Court of Vermont · 1924
- Gentry v. FarruggiaWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1949
- Vaughn v. CongdonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
- Pond v. Pond's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1906
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.