Case ID: h-mch_3/html/0099-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      (dubitante Goldsborough, J.)", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1792.
    Robert Fulton against Joseph Wood.
    THIS was an action of debt on a bond. The plaintiff had judgment and issued a ca. sa. which was delivered by the sheriff to the plaintiff’s attorney, at his request, during the sitting of the court to which the writ was made returnable, and was mislaid. The plaintiff’s attorney procured a copy or duplicate of the ca. sa¿ from the clerk, upon which the sheriff returned cepi, and brought the defendant into court. The plaintiff’s attorney (B. Johnson) moved that the defendant might be committed on the copy of the writ so obtained, and the return; which motion was opposed by Jenings, the defendant’s attorney, who contended that it was necessary, before a person.could be committed, that there should be a return upon the original process, and that no copy would answer, and cited the case of Rex v. Toler, 1 Ld. Raym. 555. That inasmuch as an action of false imprisonment would lie against the officer who could not show the process, the defendant ought not to be committed. Cited Foster, 242. 5 Com. Dig. 448. 4 Co. 67. a. 5 Co. 90. Shep. on Fines, 320..
   The Court

(dubitante Goldsborough, J.)

said, let him be committed. There is no necessity for any return to be made on a ca. sa. in order to justify a committitur.

Chase, Ch. J. cited the following authorities: 5 Rep. 90. 2 Salk. 700. 2 Ld. Raym. 775. Cas. temp. Hardw. 348. Crompt. tit. Execution. 5 Com. Dig.

Jenings’s Notes.