Langdon v. Hathaway
Superior Court of New Hampshire
THIS was an action of trespass, vi et armis. The defendant pleaded not guilty as to the force, and a justification as to the residue.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass, vi et armis. The defendant pleaded not guilty as to the force, and a justification as to the residue. The facts alleged as a justification were, that the defendant, being a deputy sheriff in the county of Strafford. received for service a writ of attachment, sued out by one Marshall, against the present plaintiff, on the 5th August, 1816, and returnable to the next January term of the court of common pleas ; that on the 3d of November, 1816, at Conway, in said county, by virtue of said writ, the defendant arrested the plaintiff, who thereupon rescued himself,…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
The evidence in this case is conclusive, that the escape of the plaintiff was voluntary. The verdict, therefore, when we advert to the issue, appears to be incorrect. But it is stipulated by the parties, that the verdict shall not be set aside unless upon all the evidence the plaintiff is entited to recover. This inode of considering those questions of law that may be raised by the facts in this action, is untechnical, and a demurrer should have been filed to the defendant’s plea: or on these pleadings a verdict should have been returned for the plaintiff, and then a motion made by the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Appleby v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Codwise v. FieldNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Langdon v. PotterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Stone v. WoodsNew York Supreme Court · 1809