ARREST. To deprive a person of his lib erty by legal authority.
The taking, seizing or detaining the person of another, touching or putting hands upon him in the execution of process, or any act indicating an intention to arrest. II. S. v. Benner, Bald. 234, 239, Fed. Cas. No. 14,568.
"A restraint of the person, a restriction of the right of locomotion which cannot be im plied in the mere notification, or summons on petition, or any other service of such pro cess, by which no bail is required nor re straint of personal liberty." Hart v. Flynn's Ex'r, 8 Dana (Ky.) 190. "An arrest is an imprisonment." Blight v. Meeker, 7 N. J. L. 97. The term implies restraint of liberty by an officer of the law, but touching the person is not necessary unless required to acquire control of the person of the one ar rested. State v. Buxton, 102 N. C. 129, 8 S. E. 774; McAleer v. Good, 216 Pa. 473, 65 Atl. 934, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 303, 116 Am. St. Rep. 782; Butler v. Washburn, 25 N. A. 251; Bissell v. Gold, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 210,19 Am. Dec. 480 ; 5 17. C. Q. B. 341; Strout v. Gooch, 8 Me. 126 ; 4 C. B. N. S. 180, 205, where the subject is examined by Wines, J., who expressly dissents from Sir James Mansfield in 2 B. & P. N. R. 211, the authori ty usually relied upon contra. What is ac tually required is more tersely expressed in Lawson v. Buzines, 3 Harr. (Del.) 416, when he says that the officer "must make him his prisoner in an unequivocal form." As ordinarily used, the terms arrest and attach ment coincide in meaning to some extent ; though in strictness, as a distinction, an arrest may be said to be the act resulting from the service of an at tachment. And in the more extended sense which is sometimes given to attachment, including the act of taking, it would seem to differ from arrest in that it is more peculiarly applicable to a taking of prop erty, while arrest is more commonly used in speak ing of persons.
The terms are, however, often interchanged when speaking of the taking a man by virtue of legal au thority. Arrest is also applied in some instances to a seizure and detention of personal chattels, espe cially of ships and vessels; but this use of the term is not common in modern law.
In Civil Practice. The apprehension of a person by virtue of a lawful authority to answer the demand against him in a civil action. Gentry v. Griffith, 27 Tex. 462.
One of the means which the law gives the creditor to secure the person of his debtor while the suit is pending, or to compel him to give security for his appearance after judgment. La. Civ. Code art. 211.
Acts which amount to a taking into cus tody are necessary to constitute an arrest; but there need be no actual force or manual touching the body: it is enough if the party be within the power of the officer and sub mit to the arrest ; Cas. temp. Hardw. 301; 5 B. & P. 211; Huntington v. Blaisdell, 2 N. H. 318; Hart v. Flynn's Ex'r, 8 Dana (Ky.) 190; Strout v. Gooch, 8 Me. 127; Bis sel v. Gold, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 215, 19 Am. Dec. 480; Field v. Ireland, 21 Ala. 240 ; Courtoy v. Dozier, 20 Ga. 369; Cooper v. Adams, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 294; but mere words without submission are not sufficient; 2 Hale, P1. Cr. 129; Jones v. Jones, 35 N. C. 448 ; State v. Buxton, 102 N. C. 129, 8 S. E. 774.
Whom to be made by. It must be made by an officer having proper authority. This is, in the United States, the sheriff, or one of his deputies, general or special, or by a mere assistant of the officer, if he be so near as to be considered 'as acting, though he do not actually make the arrest ; Cowp. 65.
The process of the United States courts is executed by a marshal. As to the power of the sergeant-at-arms of a legislative body to arrest for contempt or other cause, see 1 Kent 236. An order of the United States House of Representatives declaring a wit ness before one of its committees in con tempt for not answering certain questions, and ordering his arrest and imprisonment is void and affords no defence to the ser geant-at-arms in an action for false impris onment against him; Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 26 L Ed. 377, where there is a full review of the cases.