Browning v. Abrams

New York Supreme Court

Browning v. Abrams

51 How. Pr. 172

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 51 How. Pr. 172 (Browning v. Abrams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 How. Pr. 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/browning-v-abrams-nysupct-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack