Ford v. Breen

53 N.E. 136, 173 Mass. 52, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 1019
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 2, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 53 N.E. 136 (Ford v. Breen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ford v. Breen, 53 N.E. 136, 173 Mass. 52, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 1019 (Mass. 1899).

Opinion

Knowlton, J.

This is an action of tort against two police officers, for an alleged illegal arrest and imprisonment. The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff was intoxicated, and was committing a breach of the peace in a dwelling-house where she resided, and that the defendants entered the house and arrested her there without a warrant. The plaintiff excepted to the refusal of the judge to rule that the defendants had no right to arrest her in her dwelling-house, and to his ruling that, if she was in a state of intoxication, committing a breach of the peace or disturbing others, the defendants were authorized to make the arrest. This ruling was precisely in accordance with St. 1891, c. 427, § 1, which provides that “ Whoever is found in a state of intoxication in a public place, or is found in any place in a state of intoxication committing a breach of the peace or disturbing others by noise, may be arrested without a warrant by a sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable, watchman, or police officer,” etc. The plaintiff contends that the words “anyplace” were not intended to include a dwelling-house; but there is no good foundation for this contention. No expression could be found that would be broader in its inclusiveness. The case of Commonwealth v. Tobin, 108 Mass. 426, 429, is a direct adjudication against the plaintiff’s contention. See also Parker v. Barnard, 135 Mass. 116, 117.

The averments of the answer, setting up a justification, were [54]*54sufficient to warrant the introduction of the evidence relied on by the defendants. The ruling that, if the defendants found the door of the house open, they had a right to enter the house without an express or implied invitation, was correct.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Castagna v. Jean
D. Massachusetts, 2019
Castagna v. Edwards
361 F. Supp. 3d 171 (District of Columbia, 2019)
Commonwealth v. Kiser
724 N.E.2d 348 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2000)
Commonwealth v. Mullins
582 N.E.2d 562 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1991)
Commonwealth v. Gorman
192 N.E. 618 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Komorowski v. Boston Store of Chicago
173 N.E. 189 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1930)
Edwards v. State
208 N.W. 876 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1926)
Rouda v. United States
10 F.2d 916 (Second Circuit, 1926)
Adair v. Williams
210 P. 853 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 N.E. 136, 173 Mass. 52, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 1019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-breen-mass-1899.