Warne v. Constant
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of trespass and false imprisonment. The cause was tried at the sittings in New-York, on the 4th June, 1806, before Mr. Justice Thompson. The plaintiff proved, upon the trial, that between February an¿ May, 1804, having been arrested by the defendant on ° a ca. sa. at the suit of one Frederick De Peyster, he executed a bond, according to law, for the gaol liberties, and resided with his family within the limits.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass and false imprisonment. The cause was tried at the sittings in New-York, on the 4th June, 1806, before Mr. Justice Thompson. The plaintiff proved, upon the trial, that between February an¿ May, 1804, having been arrested by the defendant on ° a ca. sa. at the suit of one Frederick De Peyster, he executed a bond, according to law, for the gaol liberties, and resided with his family within the limits. The defendant returned the plaintiff in custody on the ca. sa. On the 11th °* dkfay, 1804, a supersedeas to that writ from this court, was delivered to the sheriff,…
1Opinion of the CourtYates, J.
The only question presented for the consideration of the court is, whether the situation of the plaintiff, while thus residing with his family, within the liberties of the gaol, can be deemed such a restraint as to constitute false imprisonment, and, consequently, enable him to sustain this action.
The bond given by him for the gaol-liberties, under the statute, could only continue operative, so long as the authority, by virtue of which he was at first confined, and on which the bond is grounded, remained in force. The delivery of the supersedeas to the defendant destroyed the further…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Dusenbury v. . KeileyNew York Court of Appeals · 1881