Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

·ZPK так

A

FULL AND ARRANGED

DIGEST OF THE DECISIONS

IN COMMON LAW, EQUITY, AND ADMIRALTY,

OF

THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES,

FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT IN 1789 TO 1847,

IN

The Supreme, Circuit, District and Admiralty Courts;

REPORTED IN DALLAS, CRANCH, WHEATON PETERS, AND HOWARD'S SUPREME COURT REPORTS; IN
GALLISON, MASON, PAINE, PETERS, WASHINGTON, WALLACE, SUMNER, STORY, BALDWIN,
BROCKENBROUGH, AND M·LEAN'S CIRCUIT COURT REPORTS; AND IN BEES, WARE,

PETERS, AND GILPIN'S DISTRICT AND ADMIRALTY REPORTS.

BY RICHARD PETERS,

COUNSELLOR AT LAW.

WITH AN APPENDIX:

CONTAINING THE

RULES AND ORDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AND THE

RULES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY, ESTABLISHED BY THE SUPREME court.

IN TWO VOLUMES,

VOL. II.

NEW YORK:

LEWIS & BLOOD, LAW BOOKSELLERS.

LIBRARY OF THE

LELAND STANFORD JR. UNIVERSITY.
a 29,137

Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1847, by
RICHARD PETERS,

in the clerk's office of the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsy' 、nia.

A

FULL AND ARRANGED

DIGEST

OF THE MATTERS DECIDED IN THE SUPREME, CIRCUIT. AND DISTRICT COURTS

IOF

THE UNITED STATES,

FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMEnt of the UNITED STATES, 1789, TO 1847.

HABEAS CORPUS.

1. The supreme court of the United States may grant a habeas corpus to bring up the body of a prisoner. Ex parte Buford, 3 Cranch, 448. 2. The supreme court has power to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75; 2 Cond. Rep. 33.

3. The writ of habeas corpus does not lie to bring up a person confined in the prison bounds upon a capias ad satisfaciendum, issued in a civil suit. Ex parte Wilson, 6 Cranch, 52; 2 Cond. Rep. 300.

4. The supreme court has authority to issue a habeas corpus where a person is imprisoned under the warrant or order of any court of the United States. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; 5 Cond. Rep. 225.

5. The supreme court will not grant a habeas corpus where a party has been committed for a contempt, by a court of the United States of competent jurisdiction; and, if granted, the court will not inquire into the sufficiency of the cause of the commitment. Ibid.

circuit court in such a case, where the record is brought up directly by writ of error. Ex parte Tobias Watkins, 3 Peters, 201.

7. The power of the supreme court to award writs of habeas corpus is conferred expressly on the court by the fourteenth section of the judiciary act, and has been repeatedly exercised. No doubt exists respecting the power. No law of the United States prescribes the cases in which this great writ shall be issued, nor the power of the court over the party brought up by it. The term used in the constitution is one which is well understood; and the judiciary act authorizes the court, and all the courts of the United States, and the judges thereof, to issue the writ "for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of commitment." Ibid.

8. This general reference to a power which the court are required to exercise, without any precise definition of that power, imposes the necessity of making some inquiries into its use, according to that law which is in a cousiderable degree incorporated into our own. The writ of habeas corpus is a high prerogative writ, 6. A petition was presented by Tobias Wat-known to the common law; the great object kins for a habeas corpus, for the purpose of inquiring into the legality of his confinement in the gaol of the county of Washington, by virtue of a judgment of the circuit court of the United States of the District of Columbia, rendered in a criminal prosecution instituted against him in that court. The petitioner alleged that the indictments under which he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, charge no offence for which the prisoner was punishable in that court, or of which that court could take cognizance; and, consequently, that the proceedings were coram non judice. The supreme court has no jurisdiction in criminal cases which could reverse or affirm a judgment rendered in the

of which is the liberation of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause. It is in the nature of a writ of error, to examine the legality of the commitment. The English judges being originally under the influence of the crown, neglected to issue the writ where the government entertained suspicions which could not be sustained by evidence; and the writ, when issued, was sometimes disregarded or evaded, and great individual oppression was suffered in consequence of delays in bringing prisoners to trial. To remedy this evil, the celebrated habeas corpus act of the 31st of Charles II. was enacted, for securing the benefits for which the writ was given. This statute may be referred

(3)

« AnteriorContinuar »