¶1was of opinion, that the constable was not, as constable, justified by the warrant, because the justice had no jurisdiction to grant such a warrant. That the right to break open the doors, was the right of the landlord, or his bailiff, as such. That the constable is required to be present only to keep the peace, and that, even then, if the goods be not found in the house, the constable who breaks open the doors, is liable to an action of trespass. Verdict for plaintiff.
2 D.C. 292
Wells v. Hubbard
Decided April 15, 1822
Trespass quare clausum fregit. The defendant, who was a constable, justified under a warrant from a justice of the peace to search for goods clandestinely removed by Sears, tenant of Johns-tqn, within thirty days after the expiration of the term, under the Stat. of 11 Geo. 2, c. 19. cited Bradby on Distresses, 14, 15.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 2022
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1822-04-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →