CARPER
v.
FITZGERALD
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.
Richard L. Fitzgerald sought habeas corpus relief before a federal circuit judge in Baltimore, Maryland, challenging his detention by a Virginia jailer under a justice of the peace's mittimus. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the circuit judge's decision in chambers, though later ordered to be filed with the circuit court, was a decision of the judge sitting individually rather than a decision of the circuit court as such, and therefore did not fall within the appellate jurisdiction granted by statute to the Supreme Court in habeas corpus cases.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a proceeding before the Circuit' Judge for the Fourth Circuit at his Chambers in Baltimore, Maryland, for the discharge of Bichard L. Fitzgerald from the custody of H. A. Carper, jailer of Pulaski County, Virginia, under a mittimus from John H. Cecil, a justice of the peace of that county. The petition was presented to the judge in Baltimore, who directed the clerk of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to issue a writ of habeas corpus, and make it returnable before him at the United States courthouse in Baltimore. The writ was accordingly issued, under the seal of the court, in the usual form of circuit court writs, and made returnable “ before the Honorable Hugh L. Bond, judge of our Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting at the United States court-house in Baltimore, Maryland.” The record shows, that the jailer made his return to the writ, and that the petitioner filed a demurrer thereto, upon consideration of which an order of discharge was entered. At the foot of this order.was the following:
“ And it is ordered that the papers in this case be filed in the Circuit Court of the United States at Bichmond, Virginia, and that this order be recorded in said court..
“ Hugh L. Bond, Circuit Judge.” ' From this order the-jailer was allowed an appeal to this court by the circuit judge, and the case was docketed here as “ an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Yirginia.” The form of the docket entry here does not change the character of the proceeding from which the appeal was taken, and that was clearly under § 752 of the Bevised Statutes, before the judge sitting as a judge, and not as a court. The act of March 3, 1885, c. 353, 23 Stat. 437, gives an appeal to this court in habeas corpas cases only from the final decision of a circuit court.
The order of the judge that the papers be filed, and his order recorded in the circuit court, does not make his decision as judge a decision of the court. Neither does our Buie 34, 117 U. S. 708, adopted at the last term, have that effects The purpose of that rule was to regulate proceedings on appeals under § 763, from the decision of a judge to the circuit court of the district, as well as under § 764, as amended by the act of March 3, 1885, from a circuit court to this court. Power to make such a regulation was given to this court by § 765 of the Bevised Statutes.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U.S. 231 (U.S. 1895)…, and not by the District Judge at chambers or out of court. Had it been so heard by him, there eould have been no appeal to this court from his decision. Rev. Stat. §§ 751, 752, 764; Act of March 3, 1885, c. 353, 23 Stat. 437; Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U. S. 87; Lambert v. Barrett, 157 U. S. 697. The subsequent correspondence between the District Judge and thé petitioner’s counsel had no proper place in the record of the court, and it does not appear that the judge intended or expected his letter to be fil…
-
Craig v. Hecht, 263 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1923)…e United States circuit court of appeals from a final decision of a. district judge at chambers in a habeas corpus case, as well as from a final decision of á district court.” See also United States, Petitioner 194 U. S. 194. Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U. S. 87; In re Lennon, 150 U. S. 393; McKnight v. James, 155 U. S. 685; Lambert v. Barrett, 157 U. S. 697; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148, are cited by petitioner to show that no appeal lay from the order discharging petitioner. These cases relate to th…
-
In re Palliser, 136 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1890)…prisoner to the custody of the marshal, appears to have been a decision of the • Circuit Court at a stated term, and therefore clearly subject to an appeal, to this court, under the act of March 3, 1885, c. 353.' 23 Stat. 437; Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U. S. 87. But he was rightly remanded to custody, because the return shows that he was charged with á crime against the laws of the United States and within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States for the District of Connecticut. By section 545…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence