TRESPASSER. One who does an unlawful act, or a lawful act in an unlawful manner, to the injury of the person or property of an other. Any act which is injurious to the property of another renders the doer a tres passer, unless he has authority to do it from the owner or custodian ; Bradley v. Davis, 14 Me. 44, 30 Am. Dec. 729 ; or by law ; Lud dington v. Peck, 2 Conn. 700; Warner v. Shed, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 138; and in'this lat ter case any defect in his authority, as, want of jurisdiction by the court ; Allen v. Gray, 11 Conn. 95; Adkins v. Brewer, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 206, 15 Am. Dec. 264; defective or void ' proceedings; Baldwin v. Whittier, 16 Me. 33; Allen v. Greenlee, 12 N. C. 370 ; misapplica tion of process; Wickliffe v. Sanders, 6 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 296; renders him liable as a tres passer.
So, too, the commission of a legal act in an illegal manner, as, the execution of legal process illegally; Case v. Shepherd, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 27 ; abuse of legal process ; Ragsdale v. Bowles, 16 Ala. 62 ; exceeding the authority conferred by the owner ; Ab bott v. Wood, 13 Me. 115; or by law ; Oy stead v. Shed, 13 Mass. 520, 7 Am. Dec. 172; Kuhn v. North, 10 S. & R. (Pa.) 399 ; renders a man a trespasser. A ministerial officer, where it is his duty to act, cannot be made a trespasser ; Harding v. Woodcock, 137 U.
S. 43, 11 Sup. Ct. 6, 34 L. Ed. 580; and acting in obedience to process regular on its face, and issued by a tribunal having jurisdiction and power to issue the process, is not liable for its regular enforcement, although er rors may have been committed by the tri bunal which issued It; Stutsman Co. v. Wal lace, 142 U. S. 293, 12 Sup. Ct. 227, 35 L. Ed. 1018. See FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
In all these cases where a man begins an act which is legal by reason of some au thority given him, and then becomes a tres passer by subsequent acts, he is held to be a trespasser ab initio (from the beginning), q. v.
A person may be a trespasser by order ing such an act done as makes the doer a trespasser ; Blake v. Jerome, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 406; or by subsequently assenting, in some cases; Floyd v. Browne, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 121, 18 Am. Dec. 602 ; or assisting, though not present ; Prince v. Flynn, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 240.
It seems that a verdict for the plaintiff in guare clauswm fregit does not operate as an estoppel in a subsequent action of eject ment ; Stevens v. Hughes, 31 Pa. 381.