People Ex Rel. Roberts v. . Bowe

New York Court of Appeals

People Ex Rel. Roberts v. . Bowe

81 N.Y. 43, 8 Abb. N. Cas. 234, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 193

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 20, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 81 N.Y. 43 (People Ex Rel. Roberts v. . Bowe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People Ex Rel. Roberts v. . Bowe, 81 N.Y. 43, 8 Abb. N. Cas. 234, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 193 (N.Y. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have examined the point presented, and the various considerations urged by the respective counsel, and are of opinion that when the judgment was obtained, and the relators were charged in execution, the provisional order of arrest was extinguished, and of no force or validity, and was not revived by the reversal of the judgment.

Chancellor Kent, in Wood v. Dwight (7 Johns. Ch. 295), said: “ When process is once discharged and dead, it is gone forever, and it never can b.e revived but by a new exercise of judicial power.” In that case it was claimed that an appeal from the order dissolving an injunction operated to stay proceedings, and hence revived the process until it was finally determined, but the doctrine laid down applies to all cases, and holds that when process has once become functus officio, there is no resurrection short of a new exercise of judicial power. A party is arrested in civil cases to detain him to answer a judgment and execution. The relators in this case have complied with that requirement, and they cannot be longer held.

In Arnold v. Thomas (2 How. Pr. R. 91), the defendant, who had been arrested and given a bond to the sheriff, was discharged on filing common bail and the bail bond given up. Bbonson, J., held, that, as the order had been complied with, the defendant could not be retaken, and hence could not move to vacate the order. A different doctrine would involve great confusion.

Suppose the original judgment had been in favor of the relators and they had been discharged, could they be retaken upon the same order 1 Or,0 suppose they had given bail for the jail liberties, the same result might follow.

Ho authority has been cited in favor of the doctrine contended for, and it seems more in accordance with general principles applicable to process to hold, that, when once dead, it is gone forever. We do not mean to intimate that a new order might not be obtained.

*46 I't follows that the order of the General Term should be reversed and the relators discharged.

All concur, except Church, Oh. J., and Folger, J., dissenting, and Sapallo, J., not voting.

Order reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

We have examined the point presented, and the various considerations urged by the respective counsel, and are of opinion that when the judgment was obtained, and the relators were charged in execution, the provisional order of arrest was extinguished, and of no force or validity, and was not revived by the reversal of the judgment.

Chancellor Kent, in Wood v. Dwight (7 Johns. Ch. 295), said: “ When process is once discharged and dead, it is gone forever, and it never can b.e revived but by a new exercise of judicial power.” In that case it was claimed that an appeal from the order dissolving an injunction operated to stay proceedings, and hence revived the process until it was finally determined, but the doctrine laid down applies to all cases, and holds that when process has once become functus officio, there is no resurrection short of a new exercise of judicial power. A party is arrested in civil cases to detain him to answer a judgment and execution. The relators in this case have complied with that requirement, and they cannot be longer held.

In Arnold v. Thomas (2 How. Pr. R. 91), the defendant, who had been arrested and given a bond to the sheriff, was discharged on filing common bail and the bail bond given up. Bbonson, J., held, that, as the order had been complied with, the defendant could not be retaken, and hence could not move to vacate the order. A different doctrine would involve great confusion.

Suppose the original judgment had been in favor of the relators and they had been discharged, could they be retaken upon the same order 1 Or,0 suppose they had given bail for the jail liberties, the same result might follow.

Ho authority has been cited in favor of the doctrine contended for, and it seems more in accordance with general principles applicable to process to hold, that, when once dead, it is gone forever. We do not mean to intimate that a new order might not be obtained.

*46 I't follows that the order of the General Term should be reversed and the relators discharged.

All concur, except Church, Oh. J., and Folger, J., dissenting, and Sapallo, J., not voting.

Order reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 N.Y. 43, 8 Abb. N. Cas. 234, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-roberts-v-bowe-ny-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack