Browning v. Abrams

51 How. Pr. 172
New York Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1876·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Barrett, J.

—I am satisfied as a matter of fact, that the plaintiffs did not cause the defendant to be brought here with a view to his arrest cvoiliter / their sole intent was criminal punishment. This being so, Adriance agt. Lagrave (59 N. Y. R., 110) is authority for sustaining the arrest, for there it was said—following 14 Abbt. N. S., 333 (note) —that persons bringing the party within the jurisdiction in bad faith, for the purpose of a civil arrest, should not receive any advantage from their wrongful acts; but this rule does not apply to persons not concerned in the device. It may well be assumed that the court would have added, if necessary, that the rule did not apply to the persons bringing the party on, where there was neither trick nor device, nor bad faith on their part. The test was evidently the intent.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Browning v. Abrams, 51 How. Pr. 172 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1876).

51 How. Pr. 172 (Browning v. Abrams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thermoid Co. v. Fabel
151 N.E.2d 883 (New York Court of Appeals, 1958)
Rosenblatt v. Rosenblatt
110 Misc. 525 (New York Supreme Court, 1920)
In re Henderson
145 N.W. 574 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1914)
Netograph Manufacturing Co. v. Scrugham
133 A.D. 750 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)
People ex rel. Cornett v. Warden of the City Prison
23 N.Y. Crim. 37 (New York Supreme Court, 1908)
Higgins v. Dewey
13 N.Y.S. 570 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1890)
Hackney v. Welsh
8 N.E. 141 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)