In re Boles

• Citation: 48 F. 75
• Parties: In re BOLES.
• Decision Date: 01 January 1891
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

48 F. 75

In re BOLES.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

October Term, 1891

Ira C Terry, for petitioner.

Geo. D Reynolds, U.S. Dist. Atty.

Before CALDWELL, HALLETT, and THAYER, JJ.

THAYER J.,

(after stating the facts as above.) It will be observed that we are asked to award a writ of habeas corpus to be served at a place outside of the territorial jurisdiction of this court, for the purpose of securing the release of a person who is there confined, and we are of the opinion that we have no authority to award such a writ. It certainly cannot be maintained that this court has power to release persons who are unlawfully restrained of their liberty in any part of the United States under color of process of a federal court, as the supreme court may do, yet such would be the assertion of jurisdiction on our part, if we granted a writ in the present instance. In the absence of any statute expressly authorizing us to issue a writ of habeas corpus to run and be executed outside of the circuit, our jurisdiction to release from unlawful imprisonment would seem to be restricted to cases where persons are restrained of their liberty somewhere within the circuit. Ex parte Graham, 3 Wash.C.C. 456. It was suggested at the hearing, as we understood counsel, that a writ might be awarded in this case to be served outside of the circuit, because the jurisdiction invoked is to revise the decision of the district court of the territory, and is therefore in its nature appellate, and because the appellate jurisdiction of this court extends to the territory of Oklahoma by virtue of the fifteenth section of the act creating circuit courts of appeal, and an order made by the supreme court on May 11, 1891, assigning Oklahoma to this circuit. The Yerger Case, 8 Wall. 86, and other kindred cases, are cited in support of this contention. It is sufficient to say that the authorities invoked have no application to the facts of this case. No writ of error or appeal can be prosecuted from the several district courts of the territory of Oklahoma to this court. We have no general supervisory control over the proceedings of those courts, and congress has not seen fit, in express terms, to confer on this court, as upon the supreme court, the power to issue writs of habeas corpus. Our appellate jurisdiction over territorial courts, except in the Indian Territory, is limited to a 'review of the judgments, orders, and

...