Case Name: Cornelius Wells v. Solomon Hubbard
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1822-04
Citations: 2 Cranch 292
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cornelius Wells v. Solomon Hubbard.
Judges: (Thruston, J., absent,)
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 2
Pages: 292–292

Head Matter:
Cornelius Wells v. Solomon Hubbard.
A constable is not justified in breaking into a dwelling-house, by a warrant from a justice of the peace to search for goods clandestinely removed by a tenant to deprive his landlord of his remedy by distress for rent.
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.
Mr. Ashton, for the defendant,
cited Bradby on Distresses, 14, 15. And the Stat. 11 Geo. 2, c. 19, which was in force in Maryland, and adopted as the law of this county, by the Act of Congress of the 27th February, 1801, [2 Stat. at Large, 103,] “ concerning the District of Columbia.” '
Mr. Jones, for the plaintiff.
That statute does not authorize a warrant. The landlord, or his bailiff, by the first section is authorized to seize the goods wherever found, within thirty days after removal; and by the 7th section, to break open and enter any dwelling house where the same shall be suspected to be concealed, first calling the constable of the place to his assistance, and making oath before some justice of the peace, of a reasonable ground to suspect that such goods are therein, and if found, may seize the goods for the arrears of rent, as if found in any open place.
Mr. Ashton, in reply.
The magistrate had jurisdiction to issue the warrant, and the constable was bound to obey it.

Opinion:
The Court
(Thruston, J., absent,)
was 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.