THIS was an action of false imprisonment.

The declaration charged that the defendants forcibly arrested the plaintiff in Unficld, in Connecticut, and carried him to Northampton, in Massachusetts, and there confined him in prison.

The defendants pleaded not guilty; and rested their defence on two grounds: First, that they did not commit the acts charged; and, secondly, that they were justified in so doing, as they acted under the direction of the plaintiff's bail, and took the plaintiff for the purpose oi surrendering him to the officer in Northampton, who had the execution; and that no more force was used than was necessary for that pm pose.

The arrest and imprisonment were clearly proved; and •the second ground of defence was principally relied on.

It appeared in evidence, that one Mc Gregory had been baii for the plaintiff in a suit before the court of common pleas in the county of 'Hampshire, in Massachusetts; that judgment had been rendered against the plaintiff, execution taken out, and put into the ‘hands of an officer for collection ; that the plaintiff had absconded into Connecticut; that M-Gregory had pursued him thither; and that, by his direction, the defendants had arrested him. there, carried him back, and surrendered him to the officer having the execution.

was entitled to a verdict, as the facts stated were proved, and no sufficient defence had been made out. They admitted the right of the bail to take his principal wherever he could find him within the. jurisdiction; but insisted, that this right could not be extended further. They cited Stoyel’s case, before the circuit court of the United States, in which Judge Paterson presided, as having settled the point in their favour.

The bail, by virtue of the relation between him and his principal, has a right to the custody of the latter, and may, at any time, confine him. (a)

If the principal be taken away, by impressment, into the naval service; or by enlisting as a soldier; or even by criminal process; the bail may have the aid of a ha-beas corfius to bring him in to be surrendered.(b)

If then, M*'Gregory had been bail for the plaintiff in the state of Connecticut, and had taken him in the manner he did for the purpose of surrendering; him; or if, as the case stands, he had taken the plaintiff in the manner he did, within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, and had not come into Connecticut for him; all would have been well.

But we contend, that if the bail had a right to take his principal in Massachusetts, he had the same right in Connecticut.

It is said, that process is local, and necessarily confined to the jurisdiction, under the authority of which it issues. This we admit; but it does not follow, that the right of the bail to control the person of his principal, though such right may have derived its existence from process, is subject to the same restrictions.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress