History
  • No items yet
midpage
Degrand v. Hunnewell
11 Mass. 160
Mass.
1814
Check Treatment
By the Court.

There was no evidence of an arrest of Storer by the deputy Gerrish previous to the commitment; nor any evidence of an escape permitted by Gerrish, or of any default on his part, for which the defendant is liable.

For the conduct of March, the jailer, the defendant is liable in this action. A prisoner committed in execution is to he *155in salvá et arctá custodia. There is no difference * in [ * 163 ] the manner of the custody and confinement to which debtors in execution are liable, who have not complied with the requirements of the statutes enacted for the relief and the mitigation of the imprisonment of debtors, whether by day or by night. The law requires their close confinement at all hours. The verdict in this case is set aside, and a new trial is granted, (a)

Clapp vs. Cofran., 7 Mass. Rep. 101.— Colby vs. Sampson, 5 Mass Rep. 310.

Case Details

Case Name: Degrand v. Hunnewell
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: May 15, 1814
Citation: 11 Mass. 160
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.