United States Ex Rel. Smith v. Warden of Philadelphia County Prison Et Al., 181 F.2d 847 (3rd Cir. 1950)

Federal Circuits, 3rd Cir. (April 26, 1950)

Docket number: 10141


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/ex-rel-warden-philadelphia-county-prison-36634204
Id. vLex: VLEX-36634204

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Supreme Court - United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U.S. 561 (1953)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - United States Ex Rel. Smith v. Baldi., 192 F.2d 540 (3rd Cir. 1951)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - United States of America Ex Rel. William Van Scoten, Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Pa., 404 F.2d 767 (3rd Cir. 1968)

Text:

Thomas D. McBride, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

T. McKeen Chidsey, Attorney General of Pennsylvania (Colbert C. McClain, Assistant District Attorney, James W. Tracey, Jr., First Asst. District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pa., Randolph C. Ryder, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief), for appellees.

Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The relator appeals from the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania discharging a writ of habeas corpus upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to issue it. It appears that on the evening of September 23, 1949 counsel for the relator made a telephonic request for the issuance of the writ to one of the judges of the district court at his home. The judge held a hearing at noon on the next day and at 12:45 P.M. issued the writ. At that time the relator was not within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, having been taken from the Philadelphia County Prison to the Western State Penitentiary at Rockview in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The respondent moved to discharge the writ and the motion was heard by the district court in banc. That court, the judge who originally issued the writ dissenting, held that it had no jurisdiction of the proceeding and discharged the writ. We are satisfied that the district court was without jurisdiction of the habeas corpus proceeding for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court in banc filed by Chief Judge Kirkpatrick, 87 F.Supp. 339, with which we are in complete accord.

Accordingly the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access