Case Name: THOMAS LAWSON vs. SAMUEL BUZINES
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1842
Citations: 3 Harr. 416
Docket Number: 
Parties: THOMAS LAWSON vs. SAMUEL BUZINES.
Judges: Before judges Harrington- and Layton.
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 416–418

Head Matter:
THOMAS LAWSON vs. SAMUEL BUZINES.
An arrest by an officer beyond the limits of his authority, is illegal.
The arrest is made by touching the person or other act of corporal constraint.
An imprisonment may be by constraining a person to go to avoid violence.
A constable may appoint a deputy to levy an execution.
Before judges Harrington- and Layton.
Narr. in trespass. First count: for assault and battery in Brandy-1 wine hundred, and false imprisonment of plaintiff. Second counti for assault and battery. Third count: for taking and carrying awaj a bay mare and wagon, and converting the same.
Pleas: to the first count, not guilty, and a justification under capias issued by William M‘Caulley, Esq., a justice of the peace oJ New Gristle county, against plaintiff, at the suit of one Philip Plun-I ket; under arid by virtue of which the defendant, then being a con-| stablethe city of - Wilmington, arrested the plaintiff in the said citjl as he well might.'-.To the second count, not guilty. To the thirc count, not guilty, and a justification by virtue of execution process! issued on a judgment rendered by William M'Caulley, Ésq., a justice of the peace of New Castle county, at the suit of Philip Plun-ket against Thomas Lawson (the plaintiff,) and one James Smyth; he the said defendant being at the time of said taking, the deputy of David L, Moody, a constable, and seizing said goods, &c., by virtue of said writ, as such deputy. Rejoinder and issue. Issues to the plea of not guilty. Replication to second plea, first count: that the trespasses alledged in the narr. were not committed in the due execution of the writ mentioned in the plea, and that defendant had no authority to execute the same; but that the defendant, being a constable for Wilmington city, illegally arrested the plaintiff beyond the city limits. Replication to second plea, third count: that defendant was not the deputy of David L. Moody, Issues.
It appeared in evidence that the defendant was a city constable, and having a capias against the plaintiff called on him beyond the Brandywine, and gave him the warrant to read, but did not lay his hand on him. The plaintiff considered himself as arrested, tried to get security for his appearance; and asked the constable to let him go home for his coat; which, after some hesitation he permitted, and waited for him until his return, when they went together into the city before the magistrate. The justice gave judgment and issued an execution, and the defendant on the same day levied on the mare and wagon in Brandywine hundred. This execution when produced was indorsed by a written deputation from David L. Moody, a constable of New Castle county. Mr. Moody now confirmed the deputation, and proved that he made it on the day of the trial before the justice, but whether before or after the levy, he did not know.
Wm. H. Rogers, for plaintiff,
contended — 1st. That there was an arrest in Brandywine hundred, whether defendant laid his hands on [plaintiff or not; if he obliged Lawson to go over to Wilmington, it [was an arrest^ 2d. That there was no proof of a députation in fact [before the levy. 3d. That there is no authority under our laws for [a constable to depute another to act for him. (2 Harr. Ref. 318, ICarlisle vs. Carlisle’s adm’r.)
Bayard, contra.
1st. To constitute an arrest there must be an kctual imposition of hands. The constable has no^^jffiPtoCTgjgpel a person to go with him without this ceremony^and0^fjAi^f0|oose lo go without such an arrest, it is his own fi^^Tf this p]qjn|rahad resisted Buzines and refused to go, he woum ha^b^^^^tinal|e; Ind Buzines would have been guilty of an ass&lMnd batteryLf he had touched Lawson. 2d. Buzines was regularly deputed by Moody to make the levy. One constable can depute another to levy an execution for him. It is the constant practice. He is a mere ministerial officer. The principal is responsible for the deputy’s act.
W. H. Rogers, for plaintiff.
J. A. Bayard, for defendant.

Opinion:
By the Court:
Harrington, Justice.
The defendant is liable to this action if he arrested the plaintiff in Brandywine hundred. As a constable of the city of Wilmington, he has no authority out of the city limits. To constitute a legal arrest the officer must lay his hand on the defendant, or otherwise take possession of his person. He must make him his prisoner in an unequivocal form.
But it has been decided that if an officer so treat a party as to constrain him to go with him, to prevent a resort to actual force, this is an imprisonment. (R. & M. 32; 2 Car. & P. 360; Ros. Civ. Ev. 459.) An imprisonment is any forcible detention of a man's person, or control over his movements. Such an imprisonment would make the defendant liable to damages; but if the plaintiff accompanied him without any constraint, it would not amount to either an arrest or an imprisonment.
The levy under the execution process seems to have been regular; that is, if the indorsement of deputation was not made after the levy in order to supply the defect of authority. The jury must judge of that. If the deputation was made before, we think it would authorize the levy. It is merely a ministerial act, and the constable deputising wrould be liable for any abuse of authority, in the same manner as if he had done it himself. Verdict for defendant.