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

HENRY V. HENKEL, 235 U. S. 219 (1914)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 235 U. S. 219 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Henry v. Henkel, 235 U.S. 219 (1914)

Henry v. Henkel

No. 216

Argued February 24, 25, 1914

Decided November 30, 1914

235 U.S. 219


No hard and fast rule has as yet been announced as to how far the Court will go in passing upon questions raised in habeas corpus proceedings. Barring exceptional cases, the general rule is that, on applications for habeas corpus, the hearing is confined to the single question of jurisdiction, and even that will not be decided in every case. The hearing on habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error, nor is it intended as a substitute for the functions of the trial court. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 235 U. S. 220

This rule applies equally whether the petitioner is committed for trial within the district or held under warrant of removal to another state. Ex Parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241.

A citizen cannot be held for custody or removed for trial where there is no provision of common law or statute making an offense of the acts charged, as in such case the committing court would have no jurisdiction, as the prisoner would be in custody without warrant of law. Every act of Congress is presumptively valid, and a committing magistrate cannot properly treat as invalid a statutory declaration of what should constitute an offense except where the act is palpably void. Whether Congress has power to compel a witness in a congressional inquiry to make material and noncriminatory disclosures, and whether the district judge has jurisdiction to commit on the ground that the statute punishing the witness for refusal to disclose is unconstitutional are questions for the determination of the trial court, and not on a proceeding in habeas corpus.

207 F.8d 5 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of courts on habeas corpus proceedings and to what extent the court will pass upon questions of jurisdiction and the merits of the case before the trial, are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 235 U. S. 224

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 |™