Case ID: mich_25/html/0145-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the matter of Daniel Sheahan.
    
      Constitutional law : Imprisonment for debt: Breach of promise to marry: Fraud. The provision in our constitution (Art. 71. § SS) that “No person shall be imprisoned ior debt arising out of or founded on a contract, express or implied, except in cases of fraud, or breach of trust, etc.,” does not prevent an arrest on a capias in an action for breach of promise to marry j where the affidavit for the writ avers the promise to marry, and that by means thereof the defendant succeeded in seducing the plaintiff. Such a case is to be regarded as one of fraud, and is, therefore, excepted from this constitutional provision.
    
      Heard and decided May 16.
    
    Petition for habeas corpus.
    
    This was an application for a writ of habeas corpus, to bring up the body of Daniel Sheahan, who was under arrest on a capias in an action for breach of prbmise to marry. It appears that the affidavit on which the order of arrest was made, averred the promise to marry, and that by means thereof the defendant succeeded in seducing the plaintiff.
    
      
      F. A. Baker, for tbe respondent,
    moved for the writ, on the ground that, the action being one on contract, the respondent was protected from imprisonment therein, by virtue of § 33 of Art. VI. of the constitution.
   The Court

held that, whether in actions- for breach of promise to marry in general, the defendant is liable to arrest or not, a case like this is to be regarded as one of fraud, and, therefore, is one excepted by the provision of the constitution.

Writ denied.