TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rittenour v. M'Causland

Rittenour v. M'Causland, 5 Blackf. 540 (1841)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 27, 1841
Judges
Blackford
Citations
5 Blackf. 5401841 Ind. LEXIS 28
Headnotes
Where 'a suit .has been improperly commenced by a capias, ad respondendum. instead ,of by a summons, the defendant has a right for that reason to be disehhrged from custody, but not to have the suit dismissed. But a motion to dismiss the suit in such eas'e, w^re it otherwise unobjectionable, cannot be made after the defendant. has appeared and pleaded in-bar. ■ , . J
Summary
ERROR to the Warren Circuit Court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Blackford

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Blackford, J.

Rittenour sued M’Causland, before a justice of the peade, on a demand of 90 dollars for the keeping of a horse, &c. for the defendant.' The suit was'commenced by a capias ad respondendum, and the defendant was brought by the constable before the justice, according to the command of the writ. A day for the trial was fixed by the jus *541 tice, and the defendant, without making any objection, gave' bail for his appearance. The parties appeared on the day of .trial, and the defendant filed several pleas in bar of the action. The cause was tried, and judgment rendered'for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court; which Court, on the defendant’s motion, dismissed _ the suit' for want of jurisdiction. ' R. A. Chandler, for the plaintiff.

The only ground for dismissing the cause was, that the capias ad respondendum had • issued , without the--plaintiff’s having filed an affidavit, pursuant to 'the statute, that he was in danger of losing his demand unless a capias issued. ' R. S. 1838, p. 366. This judgment of .dismissal for the' cause assigned must be wrong. The Court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter; and supposing the process in the case ought to have been a summons and not a capias, yet all that .the defendant could ask in süch case, was-to be discharged from custody without.giving bail. He was still bound to answer to the suit, as if the process had been a summons. ‘ Besides, the motion to dismiss the suit in .this case, were it otherwise unobjectionable, came, toó late after the pleas to the action filed before the justice (1) .. ' Per Curiam.

The judgment .is reversed'with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

Imprisonment for ’debt is now abolished in this state, except in cases of fraud, &e. Stat. 1842, p. 68.

How later courts describe this case

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

1845–1846: 11879–1880: 118452026peak 1845 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lane v. Leech6 N.W. 228 (Mich. 1880)
  2. Dudley v. Fisher7 Blackf. 553 (1845)

Most recent

  1. Lane v. Leech6 N.W. 228 (Mich. 1880)
  2. Dudley v. Fisher7 Blackf. 553 (1845)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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