the State courts may immediately proceed without waiting for the mandate of the appellate court to be sent down to the lower court.5 § 1686. Disposition of prisoner pending appeal where writ refused. Pending an appeal from the final decision of any court or judge declining to grant the writ of habeas corpus, the custody of the prisoner shall not be disturbed. Clause 1 of Supreme Court rule 34, as amended May 10, 1886, and of rule 33 of circuit courts of appeal. The rule was promulgated by the Supreme Court March 29, 1886,8 pursuant to R. S. § 765.9 It was also among the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court for the several circuit courts of appeals in 1891.10 While the rule speaks of appeal from a decision of a judge, no appeal lies except from a decision of a court notwithstanding this phraseology.11 § 1687. Disposition of prisoner if writ issued and then discharged. Pending an appeal from the final decision of any court or judge discharging the writ after it has been issued, the prisoner shall be remanded to the custody from which he was taken by the writ, or shall, for good cause shown, be detained in custody of the court or judge, or be enlarged upon recognizance as hereinafter provided. Clause 2 of Supreme Court rule 34, as amended May 10, 1886, and of rule 33 of circuit courts of appeal. Rule 34 was first promulgated March 29, 1886,14 pursuant to R. S. § 765.15 The 33rd rule of the several circuit courts of appeal is precisely the same.16 § 1688. Disposition of prisoner if ordered discharged by lower court. Pending an appeal from the final decision of any court or judge discharging the prisoner, he shall be enlarged upon recognizance, with surety, for appearance to answer the judgment of the appel 5 In re boardman, 169 U. S. 44, 42 L. ed. 654, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293; In e Jugiro, 140 U. S. 295, 35 L. ed. 510, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770. See also Lambert v. Barrett, 159 U. S. 662, 40 L. ed. 297, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136. 8117 U. S. 708. 9Quoted ante, § 1684.[a] 10 See 90 Fed. clxx. 11 Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U. S. 87, 30 L. ed. 882, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 825. See post, § 1689.[b]] 14117 U. S. 708. 15Quoted ante, § 1684.[a] 16 See 90 Fed. clxx note change in number of rule in seventh circuit, 90 Fed. cxx. late court, except where, for special reasons, sureties ought not to be required. Clause 3 of Supreme Court rule 34, as amended May 10, 1886, and of rule 33 circuit courts of appeal.17 Rule 34 was first promulgated March 29, 1886, purusant to R. S. § 765.18 The 33rd rule of the general circuit courts of appeals is precisely the same.19 The above rule does not make the decision of the circuit judge a decision of the court.20 § 1689. Mode and scope of review. Habeas corpus is a civil proceeding having many of the characteristics of an equitable remedy and the proper mode of procuring review is by appeal and not writ of error. [a] Only the final order of the lower court upon the application is appealable.[b] Appeal must be sought within six months from such final order. The writ cannot be made a substitute for writ of error so as to obtain review of errors or irregularities at a trial, and the only inquiry on appeal is whether the proceedings under which the petitioner is in custody were had by a court or officer having proper jurisdiction over person and subject matter.[c] Author's section. [a] Appeal the proper mode of review. Habeas corpus is a civil process,6 and the proper mode of obtaining review of habeas corpus proceedings is by appeal and not writ of error.? No bill of exceptions is necessary.8 [b] Only final order of court appealable. The order of the circuit or district court denying or dismissing a writ of habeas corpus 10 or discharging a prisoner thereunder11 is final and ap 17117 U. S. 708. 18Quoted ante, § 1684.[a] 19 See 90 Fed. CLXX. 20Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U. S. 87, 30 L. ed. 883, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 825. 4See ante, § 1685, also post, § 1905, which specifically so provides in case of appeal to the circuit court of appeals. 6 Farnsworth v. Montana, 129 U. S. 113, 32 L. ed. 616, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 253; Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 88, 36 L. ed. 896, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 22; In re Frederick, 149 U. S. 75-77, 37 L. ed. 653, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 793; In re Lennon, 150 U. S. 397, 37 L. 1120, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 123. ed. In 7Rice v. Ames, 180 U. S. 374, 45 L. ed. 581, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 406. many cases counsel have by way of caution taken an appeal and sued out writ of error as well, e. g., see Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 29 L. ed. 868. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734. 8 Solomon v. Davenport, 87 Fed. 318, 30 C. C. A. 664. 10 Holmes v. Jenison, 14 Pet. 562, 10 L. ed. 579; In re Palliser, 136 U. S. 262, 34 L. ed. 514, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1034; Ex parte Snow, 120 U. S. 274, 30 L. ed. 658, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556. 11In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 42, 34 L. ed. 55, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 658; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 162, pealable, even though the preliminary application for the writ may have been before the judge of the court at chambers.12 But the habeas corpus decision of a judge at chambers is not a final judgment of a court, and hence no appeal lies therefrom.13 By a parity of reasoning writ of error will not lie to review a decision of a State court judge at chambers.14 Rule 34 of the Supreme Court 15 does not make the judges' decision at chambers a decision appealable although the language used would seem to so imply.16 Where the denial of the writ is by a judge at chambers he may properly refuse to allow an appeal.17 It has been held that the circuit court may in its discretion refuse to allow an appeal.18 But this has been denied.19 [c] Scope of review. It is a well established rule that habeas corpus cannot be made to perform the functions of a writ of error.2 In other words a party, cannot after trial below, obtain a review of mere errors of law3 and irregularities not jurisdictional in character, by suing out habeas corpus and then taking an appeal thereon. The temptation to strive after review by the Supreme Court in that mode, in cases where no right to writ of error exists, is obvious, but if the court below had jurisdiction of subject matter and person, habeas corpus cannot afford relief.5 The inquiry is as to the jur 43 L. ed. 399, 404, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 119. 12 Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 161, 162, 43 L. ed. 404, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 119. 13 Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U. S. 87, 30 L. ed. 882, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 825; Lambert v. Barrett, 157 U. S. 700, 39 L. ed. 866, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 723; Whitter v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 244, 40 L. ed. 413, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 302; Ex parte Jacobi, 104 Fed. 681. 14 McKnight v. James, 155 U. S. 687, 39 L. ed. 311, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 249. 15 See ante, § 1686. U. 16 Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 S. 87, 30 L. ed. 882, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 825. 17In re King, 51 Fed. 440. 18In re Durrant, 84 Fed. 317. See In re Boardman, 169 U. S. 43, 42 L. ed. 653, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 291. 19 In re Marmo, 138 Fed. 201. 2Whitney v. Dick, 202 U. S. 136, 50 L. ed. 964, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 584; Andersen v. Treat, 172 U. S. 24, 43 L. ed. 353, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 67; Ex parte Tyler, 149 U. S. 180, 37 L. ed. 694, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 785; Ex parte Frederick, 149 U. S. 75, 37 L. ed. 656, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 793; In re Swan, 150 U. S. 648, 37 L. ed. 1209, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 375, 25 L. ed. 717; Stevens v. Fuller, 136 U. S. 478, 34 L. ed. 463, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 913; In re Morris, 40 Fed. 825; In re Jordan, 49 Fed. 244; Ex parte Ulrich, 43 Fed. 663; In re Callicot, 8 Blatchf. 89. Fed. Cas. No. 2,323; Ex parte Shaffenburg, 4 Dill. 271, Fed. Cas. No. 12,696. 3In re Terrill, 144 Fed. 616, (C. C. A.); Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 21, 23 L. ed. 787; Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U. S. 654, 28 L. ed. 274, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152; In re Wood, 140 U. S. 290, 35 L. ed. 505, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 942. 4In re Shibuya Jugiro, 140 U. S. 296, 35 L. ed. 510, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770; Felts v. Murphy, 201 U. S .23, 50 L. ed. 689, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 366; Valentine v. Murphy, 201 U. S. 131, 50 L. ed., 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 368. 5 In re Lane, 135 U. S. 446, 34 L. ed. 219, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 760: In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 180, 37 L. ed. 689, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 785; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 106, 43 L. ed. 91, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 805; Ex parte Ward, 173 U. S. 454, 43 L. ed. 765, 19 Sup. isdiction of the court below and the writ is proper to review proceedings which are void and not merely erroneous. 6 Questions of fact and of law which a court has jurisdiction to decide cannot be reviewed; 7 nor mere irregularities. But if the proceedings are lacking in the regular presentment or indictment required by law, or the court had no jurisdiction to imprison for contempt because the order contemned was beyond its power,10 or the imprisonment is otherwise pursuant to an order beyond the court's jurisdiction,11or pursuant to proceedings under an invalid law,12 or otherwise contrary to the Constitution, 13 all these and like matters may be inquired into on appeal in habeas corpus cases, and made the grounds of a petitioners discharge. The court may even go outside the record below, in its inquiry into a jurisdictional question.14 Where the petitioner seeks relief from commitment by a magistrate, the inquiry is as to such magistrate's jurisdiction and the existence of legal ground for the commitment.15 Ct. Rep. 459; In re Wright, 134 U. Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 21, 23 L. ed. 787; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 343, 25 L. ed. 676; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 375, 25 L. ed. 717; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 726, 28 L. ed. 1117, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 724; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 422, 29 L. ed. 89, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 935. Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U. S. 331, 28 L. ed. 1005, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 542; Horner v. United States, 143 U. S. 215, 36 L. ed. 126, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 407; In re Eckart, 166 U. S. 482, 41 L. ed. 1085, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638. $Ex parte Clarke, 100 U. S. 403, 25 L. ed. 715; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 421, 29 L. ed. 89, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 935; Stevens v. Fuller, 136 U. S. 477, 34 L. ed. 461, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 911. 9Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 422, 29 L. ed. 89, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 935; Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 13, 30 L. ed. 849, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 781. 10 Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 726, 28 L. ed. 1117, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 724; In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 485, 31 L. ed. 216, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 164; Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 305, 32 L. ed. 405, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77. 11Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 304, 32 L. ed. 405, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77; In re Swan, 150 U. S. 648, 37 L. ed. 1207, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225. 12 Hans Neilson, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 182, 33 L. ed. 118, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 672; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 374, 30 L. ed. 220, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; In re Shibuya Jugiro, 140 U. S. 294, 35 L. ed. 510, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770. 13 McKane v. Durston, 153 U. S. 689, 38 L. ed. 867, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 913. 14In re Mayfield, 141 U. S. 116, 35 L. ed. 635, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 939. 15 Benson v. McMahon, 127 U. S. 462, 32 L. ed. 234, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1240. CHAPTER 52. GRAND AND PETIT JURIES IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES. § 1699. All crimes except impeachment triable by jury. § 1701. Qualification, designation and exemption of jurors. Employees of arsenals and armories exempt from jury duty. penalty for excluding such person from jury. § 1702. § 1703. § 1704. No citizen disqualified on account of race, color, etc. § 1705. § 1706. Venire, how issued and served. § 1709. Number of grand jurors-how panel completed. § 1710. -appointment of foreman. § 1713. § 1714. How often persons to be summoned as grand jurors. § 1716. § 1717. -excess peremptory challenges to be disallowed by court. § 1718. § 1719. § 1720. § 1721. Special causes of challenge in bigamy cases, etc. § 1722. § 1723. § 1724. Special provisions regarding service of same jurors in both cir- From what parts of district jurors returned. Provisions as to residence of jurors in districts containing judicial divisions. § 1725. Special provisions as to summoning jurors in particular districts and divisions. § 1699. All crimes except impeachment triable by jury. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. Part of clause 3, § 2, Article III., U. S. Constitution. |