EX PARTE HUNG HANG
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Hung Nang, a Chinese subject detained in San Francisco under a municipal ordinance arrest warrant, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of his detention as violating the Constitution and a U.S. treaty. The Court denied the petition, holding that it lacked original jurisdiction to issue a habeas corpus writ in this case because the statute limiting such writs to appellate jurisdiction did not apply to municipal ordinance violations, and the detention did not involve an ambassador, public minister, consul, or state party.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the legality of the detention of the petitioner, Hung Nang, a subject of the Emperor of China, by the chief of police, -under a warrant for his arrest, issued by the police judge of the city and county of San Francisco, California, for a violation of an order or ordinance of the board of supervisors of such city and county, alleged to be in contrar vention of the Constitution and of a treaty of the United States.
It has long been settled that ordinarily this court cannot issue a writ of habeas corpus except under its appellate jurisdiction, Ex parte Bollmam, & Swartwout, 4 Cranch, 75; Ex parte Watkins, 7 Pet. 568; Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85; Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163; Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Ex parte Siebold, Ib. 371.
Section 751 of the Kevised Statutes, which reenacts a'similar provision in the judiciary act of 1789 (sec. 14), gives this court authority to issue the writ, but except in cases 'affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, or consuls, and those in which a State is a party, it can only be done for a review of the judicial decision of some inferior officer or court. This petition presents no such case.
The writ is emsequentl/y denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitney v. Dick, 202 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1906)
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163 (U.S. 1873)
- Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1879)
- Ex parte Bollman and Ex parte Swartwout, 4 Cranch 75 (U.S. 1807)
- Ex parte Parks, 93 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1876)
- Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85 (U.S. 1868)
- Ex parte Tobias Watkins, 7 Pet. 568 (U.S. 1833)