Mead v. Haws

New York Supreme Court

Mead v. Haws

7 Cow. 332

New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1827·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Curia, per Savage, Ch. J.

The judge was correct. It was decided in Shadgett v. Clipson, (8 East, 328,) that the defendant could not justify an arrest of the plaintiff by a wrong name, though he was the person intended to be arrested, unless it was shown that he was known by one name as well as the other. There was no offer to show [333]*333here, that the plaintiff was known as well by the name of John Doe as Levi Mead. The same principle is recognized in various other cases; (2 Campb. 270; 3 id. 110; 6 T. R. 234;) and, particularly, in the late case of Griswold v. Sedgwick, (6 Cowen, 456,) in which the subject was fully examined, and the authorities collected and considered by this court. The motion for a new trial must be denied.

New trial denied.

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

Curia, per Savage, Ch. J.

The judge was correct. It was decided in Shadgett v. Clipson, (8 East, 328,) that the defendant could not justify an arrest of the plaintiff by a wrong name, though he was the person intended to be arrested, unless it was shown that he was known by one name as well as the other. There was no offer to show [333]*333here, that the plaintiff was known as well by the name of John Doe as Levi Mead. The same principle is recognized in various other cases; (2 Campb. 270; 3 id. 110; 6 T. R. 234;) and, particularly, in the late case of Griswold v. Sedgwick, (6 Cowen, 456,) in which the subject was fully examined, and the authorities collected and considered by this court. The motion for a new trial must be denied.

New trial denied.

Mead v. Haws, 7 Cow. 332 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1827).

Pincite

7 Cow. 332 (Mead v. Haws) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related