## Facts

- Grainger, master and owner of a vessel, borrowed £80 from the defendants and secured repayment by a mortgage on the vessel at 5% interest, redeemable on September 28, 1837.
- The agreement allowed Grainger to retain command of the vessel and continue voyages for his own profit until the redemption date.
- Before the debt was due, the defendants sought to force early repayment and brought an assumpsit action falsely alleging the debt was presently due.
- The defendants swore an affidavit of debt and caused a writ of capias ad respondendum to issue, directing the sheriff to arrest Grainger.
- A sheriff’s officer went to Grainger (ill in bed) and stated that a capias was outstanding and that unless Grainger surrendered the ship’s register or found bail, he would be taken away or guarded.
- Grainger surrendered the ship’s register to the officer for the defendants’ benefit; without the register, the vessel could not lawfully be used and missed several voyages.
- Grainger soon repaid the loan; the assumpsit action did not proceed to judgment, and the process was used to obtain the register rather than to litigate the debt in the ordinary way.
- Grainger sued in an action on the case, alleging the defendants abused court process to coerce surrender of his property.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may maintain an independent tort action for abuse of process where process is used to compel surrender of property for a collateral purpose, without alleging favorable termination of the underlying suit or lack of reasonable and probable cause.
2. Whether restraint imposed by a sheriff’s officer acting under a writ of capias constitutes an arrest without physical contact.

## Decision

- The court denied the defendants’ motion for nonsuit and upheld judgment for Grainger.
- The court held that an action lies for abusing court process to achieve an object outside the scope of that process, including illegally compelling a party to give up property.
- The court held that favorable termination of the underlying action and absence of reasonable or probable cause are not required elements for this abuse-of-process claim.
- The court held that placing a person under restraint under color of a capias constitutes an arrest even without physical touching.

## Legal Principles

- Abuse of process is a distinct tort from malicious prosecution and targets misuse of process after it issues to obtain a collateral advantage not authorized by the process.
- In abuse of process, liability turns on using legal process for an ulterior purpose outside its legitimate scope; the wrong is the coercive use of process as a means to an improper end.
- A plaintiff alleging abuse of process need not show that the prior proceeding terminated in the plaintiff’s favor or that the process was initiated without reasonable and probable cause.
- For arrest under a writ of capias, actual physical seizure is unnecessary; effective restraint of liberty under asserted legal authority is sufficient.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a standalone claim for abuse of process where civil arrest process was used as leverage to extort a ship’s register, holding that such a claim does not require favorable termination or lack of probable cause and that restraint under a capias can constitute an arrest without physical contact.


Grainger v. Hill, 132 Eng. Rep. 769 (C.P. 1838)