US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

PECKHAM V. HENKEL, 216 U. S. 483 (1910)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 216 U. S. 483 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Peckham v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 483 (1910)

Peckham v. Henkel

No. 366

Argued January 6, 7, 1910

Decided February 21, 1910

216 U.S. 483


Haas v. Henkel, ante, p. 216 U. S. 462, followed as to jurisdiction of commissioner under § 1014, Rev.Stat., in removal proceedings to remove accused who has been indicted in more than one district.

The fact that the person whose removal is sought is under bond to appear in other removal proceedings on prior indictments does not prevent the removal order's being issued. The effect could only be to exonerate the sureties.

The rule that the jurisdiction over the person by one federal court must be respected until exhausted is one of comity only, and has a limited application in criminal cases. It will not prevent removal under § 1014, Rev.Stat., where the cases are not the same.

Even if a second removal proceeding does amount to an election by the government to abandon the first complaint, that fact does not affect the jurisdiction of the commissioner.

Disregard of comity between federal courts at the instance of the government is not an invasion of constitutional rights of the accused. It does not affect the jurisdiction of the commissioner, and even if his decision is erroneous, it cannot be attacked on habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is not writ of error.

166 F.6d 7 affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 216 U. S. 484

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™