(1348) YB 22 Edw III, f 99, pl 60 · King's Bench · England
Tortstort-lawTortsAssault – apprehension of imminent contact
Issue
Whether assault requires physical contact.
Held
No, assault requires only a reasonable apprehension of immediate battery.
Exam use
In an exam, introduce I de S and Wife v. W de S with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what I de S and Wife v. W de S decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Assault – apprehension of imminent contact, then move quickly to analysis.
Summary
I de S and Wife v. W de S is included in the Torts case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Assault – apprehension of imminent contact. The reported citation is (1348) YB 22 Edw III, f 99, pl 60, and the decision is associated with King's Bench. In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.
Facts
The material factual signal for I de S and Wife v. W de S is: The defendant struck an axe against the door of the plaintiff's tavern, but did not touch the plaintiff or his wife, who was inside. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Torts, use the facts to explain why Assault – apprehension of imminent contact was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.
Procedural History
I de S and Wife v. W de S is reported as a decision of King's Bench. The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.
Issue
Whether assault requires physical contact.
Held
No, assault requires only a reasonable apprehension of immediate battery.
Ratio Decidendi
Assault is an act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
Obiter Dicta
Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.
Reasoning
For reasoning, start with the ratio: Assault is an act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes I de S and Wife v. W de S easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Torts, the case should be compared with related authorities on Assault – apprehension of imminent contact; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.
Plain-English Explanation
Plainly, I de S and Wife v. W de S is a case to use when a Torts answer needs an authority on Assault – apprehension of imminent contact. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to I de S and Wife v. W de S ((1348) YB 22 Edw III, f 99, pl 60) strengthens a Torts answer because the case reflects the principle that Assault is an act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether assault requires physical contact. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
tort-law
Torts
Assault – apprehension of imminent contact
case authority
exam application
Key Passages
Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.
Significance
I de S and Wife v. W de S is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Assault – apprehension of imminent contact in Torts. The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
In an exam, introduce I de S and Wife v. W de S with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what I de S and Wife v. W de S decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Assault – apprehension of imminent contact, then move quickly to analysis.
Revision Checklist
Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.
Problem Question Use
Use I de S and Wife v. W de S in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with The defendant struck an axe against the door of the plaintiff's tavern, but did not touch the plaintiff or his wife, who was inside., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.