Hickey v. Forristal

49 Ill. 255
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 49 Ill. 255 (Hickey v. Forristal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hickey v. Forristal, 49 Ill. 255 (Ill. 1868).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Walker

delivered the opinion of the Court:

One Parkhurst was arrested on a capias ad respondendum, issued by Forristal, a justice of the peace, and executed by Keys, as city marshal of La Salle. Hickey, appellant herein, entered himself as special bail, and an execution was after-wards issued against him under the statute, upon a judgment rendered against Parkhurst. He then filed a bill in chancery to enjoin the levy of the execution, upon the ground that the city marshal had no power to make the arrest under the capias, as it was addressed “to any constable of said city.” The court below dismissed the bill, and the complainant brings the record here.

In our opinion the complainant was entitled to his decree. There can be no question but that the arrest was illegal. The writ was issued by Forristal in the capacity of a justice of the peace, and was addressed only to a constable, and the city marshal had no more authority to make an arrest under it than would the sheriff or any private person.

But it is said the complainant has a remedy at law. Without stopping to inquire whether the remedy in this case would be complete at law, it is sufficient to say, that question should have been made in the court below. As it was not made, and as the subject matter of the bill is not foreign to the jurisdiction of a court.of equity, the complainant should have had a decree.

The decree is reversed and the cause remanded.

Decree reversed.

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

Related

Masters v. Masters
249 Ill. App. 259 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1928)
Nelson v. Chittenden
53 Colo. 30 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1912)
Wellington v. Beck
29 Colo. 73 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1901)
Friar v. McNama
70 Mo. App. 581 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
Prettyman v. Irwin
29 Ill. App. 122 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1888)
Richards v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.
25 Ill. App. 344 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1887)
Republican Valley Railroad v. Sayer
13 Neb. 280 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1882)
Board of Supervisors v. Davis
63 Ill. 405 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Ill. 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickey-v-forristal-ill-1868.