Leddy v. Crossman

Decided October 15, 1871

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1871-10-15

Tort for false imprisonment. At the trial in the superior court, before Reed, J., it appeared that the defendant was a deputy of the constable of the Commonwealth, and was engaged in searching the plaintiff’s tenement for intoxicating liquors in the execution of a warrant under the St. of 1869, e. 415; that the plaintiff hindered and opposed him in the execution of the war-' rant; that blows were exchanged between them; and that “ at some stage of these proceedings ” he…

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1934

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ames, J.

¶1The violent resistance of the plaintiff to the execu-

¶2tion of a lawful warrant would have justified his immediate arrest by the officer. It was not necessary, in order to justify such *238arrest, that the officer should give up the service of the process which he had'begun, or postpone it until he had disposed of the new case arising from the plaintiff’s interference. If the service of the process, the plaintiff’s resistance to that service, and his arrest, were all parts of the same transaction, the arrest was not unlawful. This question was put to the jury under proper instructions, and their verdict must be considered as deciding that the arrest was substantially simultaneous with the other proceedings, or at least immediately after the assault. For such a breach of the peace the officer might lawfully arrest, either during its continuance or immediately after the act.

¶3Exceptions overruled.