TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hurst's Case

Hurst's Case, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 387 (1804)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
October 1, 1804
Judges
Washington
Citations
4 U.S. 3871 L. Ed. 8784 Dall. 3871 Wash. C. C. 18612 F. Cas. 10191804 U.S. LEXIS 2451804 U.S. App. LEXIS 328

Opinion

4 U.S. 387 (____) 4 Dall. 387

Hurst's Case.

Supreme Court of United States.

*388 WASHINGTON, Justice.

I will not examine the powers of the Supreme Court of the state, upon the present occasion. It is enough to assertain, that the power of this Court is competent to the object proposed. If, indeed, any injury would be done either to the plaintiff in the suit, or to the sheriff (both of whom have acted innocently, and without knowledge of the facts, on which the claim of privilege arises) by our interposition, we might be induced to pause upon the subject. But, as to the plaintiff, it is clear, that he may renew his execution, whenever the privilege ceases: And, as to the sheriff, the order of a Court of competent jurisdiction, touching the subject matter, must be a conclusive justification in every other Court, acting upon sound principles of law and justice.

To decide the principal question, therefore, I find it necessary to go no further, than to state, that I think the witness was, in *389 this case, privileged, while he was at his lodgings. The subpœna was in force; and the arrest of the witness at that place, has all the effects which could be produced by an arrest in the streets, while coming to, or going from, the Court.

PETERS, Justice.

I concur in the sentiments, that have been expressed by the presiding judge; and add, as my separate opinion, that the party is intitled to be discharged, upon both the grounds of privilege.

A special order of discharge was, accordingly, made, and filed; at the instance of Dallas, who appeared for the sheriff.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 17 cases

View all citing references →
1869–1870: 11877–1878: 11879–1880: 11881–1882: 21891–1892: 11895–1896: 11897–1898: 11911–1912: 21915–1916: 11921–1922: 11923–1924: 12019–2020: 12021–2022: 22025–2026: 118692026peak 1881 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ryan v. ICENo. 19-1838P (1st Cir. Sept. 1, 2020)
  2. Brooks v. State79 A. 790 (Del. 1911)
  3. Bridges v. Sheldon7 F. 17 (U.S. Cir. Ct. 1880)
  4. Dwelle v. Allen193 F. 546 (S.D.N.Y. 1912)
  5. In re Healey53 Vt. 694 (1881)
  6. Christian v. Williams20 S.W. 96 (Mo. 1892)

Most recent

  1. Advanced Hair Restoration LLC v. Parsa Mohebi MD IncNo. 2:24-cv-01008 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2025)
  2. Style v. MacKeyNo. 20-2165 (2d Cir. Oct. 29, 2021)
  3. (HC) Allen v. CDCRNo. 2:20-cv-00997 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2021)
  4. Ryan v. ICENo. 19-1838P (1st Cir. Sept. 1, 2020)
  5. Sampson v. Graves208 A.D. 522 (1924)
  6. First State Bank v. Connoley109 S.E. 301 (Va. 1921)

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