Wrongous Imprisonment. - Deforcement. - Oppression and Damages.
Murray v. Mansfield
Date: 27 January 1756 Case No. No 39.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mansfield having commenced a poinding of the shop-goods of his debtor Jackson, Morton, another creditor, offered to poind in the same shop, and being prevented by Mansfield, on the pretext that he could, not come in upon a poinding already inchoated, Morton's messenger retired, after taking protest, ‘That he meant only to poind such part of the debtor's goods as Mansfield had not poinded, and only to conjoin with him in poinding the common debtor's effects; and therefore protesting, that as he was stopped in his lawful procedure, Mansfield should be liable for the debt due to Morton.’ It was agreed, that this was a deforcement sufficient to infer damages, but it was doubted to what extent; Mansfield's debt was five times greater than Morton's; the quantity and value of the goods was distinctly ascertained by Mansfield's execution of poinding; and the doubt was, whether Morton should draw from him the one half, or only a rateable proportion according to the extent of their respective debts. The Lords found Mansfield liable for a rateable proportion only, deducting the expense of poinding.
