Hudson v. Howell

Hudson v. Howell. Pri/oilege of freeholders. The privilege of freeholders to be sued by summons extends to actions of trespass vi el armis. Trespass vi et armis. Capias, returnable to this term. Sowell moved to quash the writ, the defendant being a freeholder. Millegan objected, that this was a case excepted by the act; a fine being due to the commonwealth, upon the judgment capiatur pro fi/ne, in actions vi et armis. But, by— [MAJORITY — Shippen, President.] Shippen, President. The practice has been long settled under this act. Unless it is a suit on a recognisance, or for a fine actually due to the state, we cannot take up a mere fiction, to defeat a positive privilege. The writ quashed, It has been held, however, that if a freeholder commit a trespass, jointly with one who is not a freeholder, he may be arrested upon a joint capias issued against both. Fife v. Keating, 2 Bro. 135. And see Jack v. Shoemaker, 3 Binn. 280.