Case Name: EX PARTE PRADER
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1856
Citations: 6 Cal. 239
Docket Number: 
Parties: EX PARTE PRADER.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
EX PARTE PRADER.
A party cannot be imprisoned under a judgment, in a civil action, for assault and battery.
The seventy-third section of the Practice Act is in violation of Art. I, ¡í 15 of the Constitution.
A judgment for damages for an assault and battery is as much a debt, as though recovered in an action of assumpsit.
No person can be imprisoned for debt, under the Constitution, except in cases of fraud. An assault and battery is not a case of fraud, within the meaning of the Constitution.
Application of Joseph Trader on Habeas Corpus.
The opinion of the Court contains a statement of the grounds for the application.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.
Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
The'petitioner was arrested on final process of the Court below, to answer a judgment obtained against Mm, in an action for assault and battery.
The seventy-third section of the Practice Act provides, that " the defendant may be arrested when the action is for willful injury to person or character," etc. This provision is directly in conflict with the fifteenth section of Article I of the Constitution of this State, which provides, that " no person shall be imprisoned for debt in any civil action, on mesne or final process, unless in case of fraud," etc. See case of Holdforth, 1 Cal. R., 438.
An assault and battery is not a case of fraud, in .the sense that that term is employed by the Constitution; neither can it be made so by the Legislature; and the judgment is a debt, as much as though recovered in an action of assumpsit.
The defendant must be discharged.