Skip to main content
· 2/16/1891

Saunders v. Perkins

Citations

  • 140 Pa. 102
  • 21 A. 257
  • 1891 Pa. LEXIS 809

Syllabus

<p>(a) A defendant, against whom a judgment had been recovered in an action for a tort, was arrested by the sheriff of Philadelphia county upon a capias ad satisfaciendum, and immediately released on entering bail to apply for the benefit of the insolvent laws. He made such an application, and, after hearing, the court refused to discharge him.</p> <p>(&) Thereupon, the defendant went to the county prison, informed the keeper of the prison of the facts of the case, and presented to the keeper a written statement signed by himself, reciting the refusal of his application for discharge and declaring that he surrendered himself to the jail. The keeper refused to receive and detain him, when he went away.</p> <p>(c) The keeper of the Philadelphia county prison is not a deputy of the sheriff, but is appointed annually by the board of prison inspectors, under the act of February 14, 1867, P. L. 196. He gives no official bond. The sheriff has no custody or control of the jail. When prisoners are brought to the jail by the sheriff or his deputies, a certified copy of the process is lodged with the keeper:</p> <p>1. Had the keeper of the jn-ison also been sheriff, such a surrender might have made him chargeable with the detention of the insolvent, so that his refusal to accept the surrender would have rendered him liable for an escape, as in such case he would have had in his hands the original capias upon which the insolvent was arrested, with official knowledge of his application under the insolvent laws.</p> <p>2. But, as the keeper had no record, writ, or paper of any kind, which bore authenticity, or upon its face justified the insolvent’s detention, had no knowledge, except from the person’s own statements, that he was an insolvent whose discharge had been refused, and was not bound to act upon such statements, his refusal to receive the insolvent was not a breach of duty.</p> <p>3. At all events, such refusal did not render the keeper of the prison liable, in an actio

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • PLRB findings given preclusive effect

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Their, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.