TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Long v. McLean

Z. F. Long, Sheriff v. John A. McLean and Another.

Long v. McLean, 88 N.C. 3 (1883)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 5, 1883
Judges
Ruffin
Citations
88 N.C. 3
Headnotes
Arrest and Bail. The provision of the constitution (Art. I, § 16) prohibiting “imprisonment for debt, except in cases of fraud,” has no application to actions for tort; it is confined to causes of action arising ex contractu.
Summary
MOTION to vacate an order of arrest heard at Fall Term, 1881, of Richmond Superior Court, before Graves, J. The action is brought against the defendants, McLean & Leach, partners in trade, and the plaintiff alleges that certain executions were delivered to him, as sheriff, which he levied upon several hundred pounds of seed cotton, as the property of the judgment debtor, and took the same into his possession; that after'the levy, the defendants wrongfully and unlawfully took a portion of said cotton and converted it to their use, and that he believes the defendants have disposed of the same, whereby he has sustained a loss of four hundred dollars. These are the facts set out in the plaintiff’s affidavit, and upon which the order of arrest was made. The motion to vacate the order being refused, the defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ruffin

*4 Ruffin, J.

The summons in this case was served upon the defendant, Leach, alone. The action is for the wrongful conversion of personal property; Accompanying the summons was an order of arrest, under which the defendant was held to bail. At the return term, he moved to vacate the order upon the ground that the affidavit, on which it was based, failed to allege fraud, on the part of the defendant, in taking the goods; and upon his motion being overruled, he appealed to this court.

The fallacy of the defendant’s argument is in supposing that the provision of the constitution, which prohibits “imprisonment for debt, except in eases of fraud,” has any application to actions for tort.

In Moore v. Green, 73 N. C., 394 , the whole ground was gone over and thoroughly discussed, and it was solemnly resolved that the prohibition — and indeed the provisions of the entire section — was intended to apply only to causes of action arising ex contractu.

To give it any other construction, it was said, would be to withdraw a wholesome check on violence and wrong, and would tend to license disorders and law-breaking, incompatible with the peace and welfare of society.

We can add nothing to what is there said, except to call attention to the fact, that similar provisions in the constitutions of other states have received a like construction.

Harris v. Bridgers, 57 Ga., 407 ;

McCook v. State, 23 Ind., 127 ;

Lathrop v. Singer, 39 Barb. (N. Y.), 396;

People v. Cotten, 14 Ill., 414 .

No error. Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1884–1885: 11886–1887: 11890–1891: 11894–1895: 21914–1915: 11916–1917: 11922–1923: 11926–1927: 11936–1937: 11974–1975: 12016–2017: 118842026peak 1894 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Raisin Fertilizer Co. v. Grubbs19 S.E. 597 (N.C. 1894)
  2. State v. Yarboro140 S.E. 216 (N.C. 1927)
  3. Oakley v. Lasater89 S.E. 1063 (N.C. 1916)
  4. Ledford v. Smith193 S.E. 722 (N.C. 1937)
  5. Ex parte Bergman18 Nev. 331 (1884)
  6. Jewell v. Nuhn173 Iowa 112 (1915)

Most recent

  1. Crescent Foods, Inc. v. Evason Pharmacies, Inc.2016 NCBC 73 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2016)
  2. State v. Locklear203 S.E.2d 63 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)
  3. Ledford v. Smith193 S.E. 722 (N.C. 1937)
  4. State v. Yarboro140 S.E. 216 (N.C. 1927)
  5. Coble v. Medley119 S.E. 892 (N.C. 1923)
  6. Oakley v. Lasater89 S.E. 1063 (N.C. 1916)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
McCool v. State, 23 Ind. 127 (1864) 38
Moore v. Green, 73 N.C. 394 (1875) 16
People ex rel. Brennan v. Cotton, 14 Ill. 414 (1853) 14
Harris v. Bridges, 57 Ga. 407 (1876) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list