Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 U.S. 324

Hudson v. Howell

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1788-06

Held: however, that if a freeholder commit a trespass, jointly with one who is not a freeholder, he may be arrested upon a joint capias issued against both. Fife v. Keating, 2 Bro. 135. And see Jack v. Shoemaker, 3 Binn. 280 .

1 counsel of record

Relies on Jack v. Shoemaker

Decided 1788-06

¶1Pri/oilege of freeholders.

¶2The privilege of freeholders to be sued by summons extends to actions of trespass vi el armis.

¶3Trespass vi et armis. Capias, returnable to this term. Sowell moved to quash the writ, the defendant being a freeholder.

¶4Millegan

¶5objected, that this was a case excepted by the act; a fine being due to the commonwealth, upon the judgment capiatur pro fi/ne, in actions vi et armis. But, by—

¶6*325Shippen, President.

¶7The practice has been long settled under this act. Unless it is a suit on a recognisance, or for a fine actually due to the state, we cannot take up a mere fiction, to defeat a positive privilege.

¶8The writ quashed, (a)

/1/us/324 · .json · Public domain