may have been Phillips Marshall, esq. can't easily find J.P. Large here is a case: SAMUEL D. STRYKER against ISAAC REA. [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY 11 N.J.L. 319; 1830 N.J. LEXIS 25 May, 1830, Decided DISPOSITION: [**1] Order be quashed. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff creditor sought review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of the County of Hunterdon (New Jersey) discharging defendant debtor from imprisonment on an execution against him. OVERVIEW: The order of the common pleas court noted that the debtor was brought before the common pleas court after he was committed to jail on an execution against him issued out of a court for the trial of small causes. No counsel appeared before the court to uphold the order. In speculating on the grounds on which the order may have been made, the court found that the common pleas court had no authority to discharge the debtor from confinement on the grounds that he had previously obtained relief before the common pleas relief as an insolvent debtor. The common pleas court, in the exercise of their common law authority, had no such control over the jail as to discharge from it a person confined under the process of another court. Nor was there any special authority given to the common pleas court by any statute that could sustain the jurisdiction they had assumed. OUTCOME: The court quashed the order of the court of common pleas discharging the debtor from imprisonment. CORE TERMS: imprisonment, gaol, special authority, insolvent debtor, common law, confined Show Headnotes / Syllabus COUNSEL: Saxton, for plaintiff in certiorari. OPINION: [*319] THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. The order of the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Hunterdon, removed here by this certiorari, is contained in an entry made on the minutes of that court at a special term in March Term, 1829, in the following words: "The defendant in this cause having been brought before the court and it appearing that he had been arrested by John S. Wilson, one of the constables of this county, and committed to gaol on an execution against him, at the suit of the above plaintiff, issued out of the court for the trial of small causes, before Philip Marshall, esquire; and the court having inspected a copy of the said execution, also a transcript of the judgment before the said justice, and an affidavit of the defendant endorsed thereon, and a copy of the defendant's discharge as an insolvent debtor, do order that the said defendant, Isaac Rea, be discharged from imprisonment on said execution." As no counsel has appeared before us to uphold this order, was are left entirely to conjecture the grounds on which it may have been made. If sitting as a special court, under [**2] the insolvent acts, they supposed they had authority to discharge the defendant from confinement, to which as he had some months previously obtained before them relief as an insolvent debtor, he perhaps ought not to have been subjected, they manifestly misconceived their powers. As a Court of Common Pleas, in the exercise of their common law authority, they had no such control over the gaol as to discharge from it a person confined under the process of another court. Nor is there any special authority given to the court by any statute which can sustain the jurisdiction they have assumed. If, in the present instance, they might discharge from what they deemed illegal imprisonment, there would seem, [*320] reasoning by analogy, little occasion, any longer, for the writ of habeas corpus. In short, there was no semblance of authority in the Court of Common Pleas to make this order. Let the order be quashed. --------------------------------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web