EX PARTE BARRY
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.
A British subject petitioned the Supreme Court directly for a writ of habeas corpus to recover his infant daughter allegedly wrongfully held by her grandmother in New York. The Court held that it lacked original jurisdiction to hear the case because the Constitution limits the Court's original jurisdiction to cases involving ambassadors or states as parties, and this dispute involved only private individuals, so the petition was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to seek relief in the appropriate lower federal courts.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the court.
This'is a petition filed in this court for a writ of habeas corpus to be awarded to bring up the .body of the infant daughter of the petitioner, alleged to be now unlawfully debarred from him, and in the custody of Mrs. Mary Merctein, the grandmother of the said child, in the district of New York. The petitioner is a subject of the queen of Great,Britain;, and the application in effect seeks the exercise of original'jurisdiction in the matter upon which it is founded. ' No application has been made to-the .Circuit Court of the'United States for the district of New York,' for relief in-the premises, eithter by a writ of habeas corpus or de homine replegiando, or otherwise; and, of course, no case is presented for the exercise of. the appellate jurisdiction of this court by .any review, of-the final decision and awairi. of the Circuit Court' upon any such proceedings. Nor is any ease presented for the exercise'of the appellate jurisdiction of this court upon a -writ of error to th'e-decision of the highest court of law and equity in the state of 'New York, upon the' ground of any question-arising under the 25th section of the Judiciary act of <1789, ch.'20.
The case, then, is one avowedly and nakedly for the exercise of original jurisdiction by this court. Now the Constitution of the .United States has not confided any original jurisdiction to this court, except “ in. all cases affecting ambassadors, other public.ministers, and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party.” The present case falls not within either predicament. It is the case of a private individual who is an alien seeking redress for a supposed wrong done him by another private individual, who is a citizen of New York; It is plain, therefore, that this court has no original jurisdiction to entertain the present petition; and we cannot issue any writ of habeas corpus, except when it is necessary for the exercise of the jurisdiction, original or appellate, given to it by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Without, therefore, entering into the merits of the present application, we are compelled, by our duty, to dismiss the petition, leaving the petitioner to seek redress in such other tribunal of the United States as may be entitled to grant it. If the petitioner has any title to redress in those tribunals, the vacancy in the office of the judge of this court assigned to that circuit and district creates no legal obstruction to the pursuit thereof.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1890)…s, but the court declared that the case was not of .that class of which it" could assume original 'jurisdiction, and that no ground for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction was. presented ; and it therefore refused the application. Ex parte Barry, 2 How. 65. Prom the judgment of the Circuit Court by 'Judge Betts, Mr. Barry brought the ease to this court by a writ of error, and a motion was made to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction in this court. In this case, which was very elaborately argued,…1 / 3
-
Ex parte Parks, 93 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1876)…its. constitutional want of original jurisdiction on the subject; from whence it follows that, except in aid of some other acknowledged jurisdiction, it can only issue the writ to review the action of some inferior court or officer. Ex parte Barry, 2 How. 65. From this review of the law it is apparent, therefore, as [*23] before suggested, that in a case like the present, where the prisoner is in execution upon a conviction, the writ ought not to be issued, or, if issued, the prisoner should at once be…
-
United States v. West Virginia, 295 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1935)…arty . . .” Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 480-485; see Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U. S. 265, 289. Our original jurisdiction does not include suits of the United States against persons or corporations alone, see Ex parte Barry, 2 How. 65; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1, 16; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 215 U. S. 216, 224; Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U. S. 574, 581, nor is it enough to sustain the jurisdiction in such a case that a State has been made a party de…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence