
    Curry against Pringle.
    NEW YORK,
    October, 1814.
    a ^party, who power8 of a jurisdiction01 to which*» canfce extended,'Y WhereTw'árrant is issued from ¿justice’s court, against ving ¿"family, of tte plainly proYYeqnlred reat’theYerii andYr theYe’ fendnnt has been arrested, he may have foiselmpHsontiiepiaintiffi181
    THIS was an action for false imprisonment, and was tried at the Otsego circuit, in 1814, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. The plaintiff was a man having a family, residing in the county of Otsego, where he had lived for eight or ten years, an<* was arreste(l in August, 1813, on a warrant issued from a jus^ce’s court in that county, without oath, and was detained for about half an hour. The plaintiff lived in Milford, and the 1 defendant in Richfield, distant twenty-six miles from each other; and the plaintiff had, in April, 1812, in the town of Richfield, declared that he was not a man with a family. After his arrest? fche plaintiff said that he was a man with a family; upon which the defendant, to avoid the danger of being nonsuited court below, provided the plaintiff’s declaration was true, discharged him from the arrest.
    The judge directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff for nominal damages, subject to the opinion of the court, on the facts above stated; if the court should be of opinion that the defendant was not liable, a nonsuit was to be entered; but if he was liable, the verdict was to stand.
    The case was submitted to the court without argument.
   Yates, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. It appears that the plaintiff was an inhabitant of the town of Milford, in the county of Otsego, the same county in which the justice and the defendant resided. The imprisonment, in this case, was illegal, and the party is entitled to remuneration for the injury sustained. To authorize the issuing of a warrant in the first instance, the defendant ought to have proved, to the satisfaction of the justice, that the plaintiff was about to depart from the county, or that he was in danger of losing his debt. This was not done, and the justice proceeded against the plaintiff as an inhabitant having no family. From the facts in the case it is evident that those proceedings were had on the suggestion, and at the instance, of the defendant, in whose favour the process Issued, which must be deemed to have been done at his peril. He ought, therefore, to be responsible. It might, perhaps, have been otherwise, If the justice, as the agent of the defendant, had voluntarily and officiously issued the warrant, without any direct authority for that purpose. This would not have impli«ated the defendant, and the justice, in such case, might be considered as having assumed the responsibility of the measure adopted by him, and, of course, ought to be held liable for the consequences. But the officer who executed the warrant declared that he took the plaintiff at the instance of the defendant. He, therefore' was not only acquainted with the issuing of (the warrant, but directed the service of it in the manner stated, so that the remedy for .«.• injury sustained is properly sought from him. The rule is strict, that in a court of special and limited jurisdiction, the party becomes a trespasser who extends the power of the court to a case to which it cannot lawfully be extended. (2 Johns. Cases, 51. and in the cases there cited.)

It might, perhaps, be questioned whviticr, on the merits, the plaintiff ought to recover any thing. In April, 1812, in the town of Rierjieid, and at a distance of twenty-six miles from his residence in Milford, he declared that he was not an inhabitant having a family, when, in truth, it was otherwise. This evidence tended to show (and it is not unreasonable from it to infer) that Ms motive in making the false representation was to mislead the defendant with a view of future advantage; and if it cannot wholly exonerate him, it certainly warranted the verdict for nominal damages. The verdict, according to the terms stated in the case, depends altogether on the liability of the defendant, and that, according to the principles before stated, must be determined in favour of the plaintiff, and judgment must be entered accordingly.

Judgment for the plaintiff.  