Henegar v. Spangler
| Decision Date | 31 August 1859 |
| Parties | John H. Henegar, plaintiff in error. vs. John S. SpanglEr, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Motion to discharge from custody, in Whitfield Superior Court. Decision by Judge Crook, April Term, 1859.
The parties in this case were both citizens of the State of Tennessee, and each sued the other in the superior court of Whitfield county, in the State of Georgia, each requiring bail. Spangler was served and arrested by the sheriff in the suit against him. Henegar was not arrested at the suit of Spangler against him, but upon his return to Georgia, and while attending this present term of the court, as a suitor in his case against Spangler, he was arrested by virtue of the bail process, before sued out by Spangler against him, and he makes this motion to be discharged from said custody and imprisonment on the ground that being in attendance on the court as a suitor and party he is privileged from arrest.
The court refused the motion and defendant excepted.
W. H. Stanseee and J. A. GeEnn, for plaintiffs in error.
Freeman, contra.
By the Court.—Lumpkin, J., delivering the opinion.
The common law rule is recognized by the presiding judge that ordinarily the law exempts a party from arrest while going to, attending on, and returning from court. But he considered that the circumstances of this case were peculiar, and justified a departure from the usual practice. These litigants were citizens of Tennessee; they met in Georgia; each sued out bail process against the other. Henegar succeeded in having Spangler arrested in vacation, and the judge thought it but just that Spangler might have Henegar arrested during the term, where he was in attendance as a suitor.
However right the thing was in itself, and I agree with Judge Crook that it was so, still, inasmuch the law as it stands makes no such distinction, the exception will have tobe grafted upon the common law principle by the Legislature and not by the courts.
We are compelled, therefore, reluctantly to reverse the judgment
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Superior Court of King County
...Rep. 770; U. S. v. Edme, 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 147; Norris v. Beach, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 294; Sanford v. Chase, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 381; Henegar v. Spangler, 29 Ga. 217; Ballinger Elliott, 72 N.C. 596; Arding v. Flower, 8 Term. 534; Newton v. Askew, 6 Hare, 319; Tribune Ass'n v. Sleeman, 12 N.Y. Civ. ......
-
Turner v. McGee
...made in proper time, will order his discharge from arrest, or will set aside the service of the civil process.' See also Henegar v. Spangler, 29 Ga. 217, 218; King v. Phillips, 70 Ga. 409; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Everett, 97 Ga. 787, 25 S.E. 734; Rogers v. Rogers, 138 Ga. 803, 804, 76 S.......
-
Christian v. Williams
... ... Cal. 32; Bishop v. Vose, 27 Conn. 7; Pollard v ... Railroad, 7 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 70; Bridges v ... Sheldon, 7 F. 19; Hinegar v. Spangler, 29 Ga ... 218; Richards v. Goodman, 2 Va. Cases, 381. Fourth ... The legislature of this state from earliest time has ... considered this ... previously been arrested on like process issued out of the ... same court in vacation. Henegar v. Spangler , 29 Ga ... In ... North Carolina, it is held that a non-resident witness is ... privileged from arrest on civil ... ...
-
Powers v. Arkadelphia Lumber Co.
...Hun, 130; 1 Rich. Law, (S. C.) 196; 37 Minn. 118; 1 Bin. (Pa.) 77; 2 Yeates (Pa.) 222; 45 N.J.L. 119; 16 Gray (Mass.), 86; 122 Mass. 428; 29 Ga. 217; 72 N.C. 596. It makes no whether the party claiming the privilege has come into the state from another state, or has simply come from one cou......