Click v. Click

Decision Date10 March 1925
Docket Number(No. 5217.)
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesW. P. Click and Amelia Click v. R. C. Click and Fannie Click.
1. Courts Inherent and Express Powers of Circuit Court Must be Exercised Within Territorial Jurisdiction Thereof Unless Enlarged by Statute.

The inherent, as well as the express powers of a circuit court must be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction of that court unless the fields of their use are enlarged by positive legislative enactment, (p. 421).

(Courts, 15 C. J. §119.)

2. Statutes Absurd or Unjust Construction Should be Avoided.

It is the duty of a court to construe a statute according to its true intent, and give to it such construction as will uphold the law and further justice. It is as well the duty of a court to disregard a construction, though apparently warranted by the literal sense of the words in a statute, when such construction would lead to injustice and absurdity. (p. 430).

(Statutes, 36 Cyc. pp. 1106, 1107.)

3. Habeas Corpus Circuit Court of One County May Issue Writ

of Habeas Corpus Directed to Resident of Other County Not in Same Circuit, But Writ Should be Returnable Before Circuit Court of Such Other County, or Judgt Thereof im Vacation, Unless Such Judge or Court is not Available.

The circuit court of Cabell county may issue a writ in habeas corpus directed to a resident of Jackson county; but the writ should be made returnable before the circuit court of Jackson county, or the judge thereof in vacation, unless such judge or court is not available to hear the case. (p. 428).

(Habeas Corpus, 29 C. J. §119.)

4. Same "Habeas corpus" is Suit in Which Writ is Issued

Challenging the Right of One to Hold Another in Custody or Restraint.

Habeas Corpus is a suit wherein probable cause therefor being shown, a writ is issued Avhich challenges the right of one to held another in custody or restraint. (p. 421).

(Habeas Corpus, 29 C. J. §1; Prerogative Writs, 31 Cyc. p. 1165.)

(Note: Parenthetical references by Editors, C. J. Cyc. Not part of syllabi.)

Error to Circuit Court, Cabell County.

Proceeding in habeas corpus by W. P. Click and another against P. C. Click and another to determine right to custody of Voilet Click, an infant. Judgment for relators, and respondents bring error. Reversed; writ dismissed.

J. L. Wolfe, for plaintiffs in error.

Duncam W. DaiigJierty, for defendants in error.

Hatcher, Judge:

This is a proceeding in habeas corpus brought here by R. C.

and Fannie Click, who complain of a judgment against them by the judge of the circuit court of Cabell county.

This action was instituted by W. P. and Amelia Click before the said court, who upon their petition, issued a writ against R. C. and Fannie Click, residents of Jackson county, requiring them to bring before it in Cabell county the body of Violet Click, an infant. R. C. and Fannie Click appeared specially and moved to quash the. writ on the ground that they, as well as the infant, Violet, were residents of the county of Jackson, and that the circuit court of Cabell county had no jurisdiction to hear this case. This motion was overruled, and R. C. and Fannie Click excepted. Violet was then brought before the court, and upon a hearing of the matter, the court decrees that the custody of the. infant he turned over by the said R. C. and Fannie Click to the relators, W. P. and Amelia Click.

The respondents charge the circuit court with two errors, to-wit: (a) making the writ returnable before itself, and (b) and upon the hearing, adjudging the relators to be entitled to the custody of the child, Violet.

The matters arising on the first assignment of error are novel in this court, so we deem it pertinent to advert briefly to the history of the writ.

I.

The origin of the writ of habeas corpus is lost THE WRIT, in antiquity. Kane, J., in II. 8. v. Williamson,

4 Am. L. R. 5, associates it with the Roman edict Be Ubero homine exhihendo. Several writs were used in England, prior to Magna Charta, to test the legality of an imprisonment, such as Be odio ct alia, corpus cum causa, etc. Put after King John on June 15th, 1215, signed the great Charta at Runnymede "a pleasant meadow by the Thames where rushes grow in the clear water of the winding river and its banks are green with grass and trees", these other writs gave place to the summary and more efficacious writ of Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum. This writ was claimed (though not always obtained) by American colonists to be their birthright as Englishmen. It has been zealously perpetuated by our Federal and State constitutions. It is called "the most cele- brated writ in the English law," is regarded as "a palladium of liberty," and is admittedly one of "the greatest and most effective remedies known to the law." So great in fact is our veneration for this writ that our text writers hesitate to define it in ordinary terms. Even our staid old American and English Encyclopedia of Law can find only Latin words with which to express a part of its definition of the Latin phrase "Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum."

"It is directed to the person detaining another and commands him to produce the body of the prisoner with the day and cause of his caption and detention ad faciendum, subjiciendum et recipiendum, and to submit to and receive whatever the judge or court issuing such writ shall consider in that behalf."

By reason of the antiquity of the writ, or the confusion resulting from its Latin words, or the veneration in which it is universally held, or perhaps for all three reasons, the writ has not been understood so well as most of our other legal proceedings. This misunderstanding has been in part fostered by the florid language of judges and text writers. It is commonly referred to both in text and decision as the "great common law writ of right" and as a "high prerogative common law writ.'' Yet this wrrit may be denied if the petitioner fails to set forth facts showing that he is entitled thereto ex merito rusticias.

"The rule is that a person restrained of his liberty is entitled as a matter of right to the writ, upon presentation to the proper officer or tribunal of his petition showing proper ground therefor." Bailey on Habeas Corpus, par. 5, page 13.

While the writ of habeas corpus is a "writ of right," is does not issue as a matter of course, but only when the application therefor contains allegations which, if true, would authorize the discharge of the person held in custody."

Simmons v. Georgia Iron & Coal Co., 117 Ga. 305.

It would therefore seem to be a "writ of right only in name and not in fact. The definitions on a prerogative writ are not at all illuminating.

"A 'prerogative writ' is one which does not issue as of right, but in the sound discretion of the court or judge.''

Ex parte Thompson (N. J.), 96 Atl. 102.

"It is a prerogative writ, not ministerially issuable, that is not of course; and yet a writ of right on a proper foundation being made by proof."

Bailey on Habeas Corpus, par. 2, page 6.

The term, "high prerogative writ," was at one time justified. At a remote date in England, it was issued by the exercise of the royal prerogative. But so also were then writs of procendendo, mandamus, prohibition and quo warranto. Each of these writs was originally issued, by virtue of the King's high prerogative. Each writ was then, and is now, as much entitled to the term high prerogative, as habeas corpus. Referring to habeas corpus. Bailey says:

"At common law it stood on the same footing with other prerogative writs such as mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition, etc., and was issued and dealt with upon the like general grounds and principles."

Bailey on Habeas Corpus, par. 2.

The royal prerogative, as such, ceased to be invoked centuries ago, the king graciously handing down the privilege to issue this writ to the court of the King's Bench. Later, the writ was issued by practically all English courts. Therefore, the original significance of the words high prerogative have lost their application to this writ. Because, however, of the right of an applicant to have a hearing forthwith on his application for the writ, and because of the further right of this writ to have precedence over all other writs affecting the applicant, it may still be denominated a prerogative writ.

There has also been some confusion in the decisions as to the character of a proceeding by habeas corpus. One state court, at least, has invested this writ with such sacrosanct individuality that it is unwilling to class the writ as even a civil or criminal action, but terms it a "summary remedy" a ''festinum remedium.''

The weight of authority, however, has acknowledged no worthy reason for distinguishing it from other legal procedure, and it is now generally regarded simply as a civil action or suit.

"The proceedings under a petition for habeas corpus are in their nature civil proceedings, even when instituted to arrest a criminal prosecution, and secure personal freedom."

Ex-parte Tom Tony, 108 U. S. 556.

"When a prisoner petitions for a writ of habeas corpus out of chancery, he thereby commences a suit and prosecutes a cause in that court," etc.

Ex-parte Thompson, (N. J.) 96 Atl. 102.

"Regardless of what a habeas corpus proceeding should be called under the Code, which divides all judicial proceedings into actions and special proceedings, it is to all intents and purposes a civil suit a proceeding in the nature of a civil action in which the party seeking to establish his right to personal liberty is plaintiff within the meaning of paragraph 2601, Rev. Stat. 1898, regardless of the name by which such a party is commonly known, and the person charged with the wrong is an adverse party, to all intents and purposes a defendant, regardless of the name by which such a person is commonly known in such a proceeding."

110 Wis. 189, 62 L. R. A. 700.

"We are of opinion that the proceeding upon habeas corpus is in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
90 cases
  • Barbara Pugh v. Doyle A. Pugh, (No. 10131)
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1949
    ...Va. 464, that "The purpose of the writ is to release any one from restraint who is detained without lawful authority." See Click v. Click, 98 W. Va. 419, 127 S. E. 194. An identical statute exists in Virginia, Code of Virginia, 1919, Section 5853; and the Supreme Court of Appeals of that St......
  • Pugh v. Pugh, 10131.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1949
    ...464, that "The purpose of the writ is to release any one from restraint who is detained without lawful authority." See Click v. Click, 98 W.Va. 419, 127 S.E. 194. An identical statute exists in Virginia, Code of Virginia, 1919, Section 5853; and the Supreme Court of Appeals of that State ha......
  • Miller v. Boles
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
    • November 23, 1965
    ...forum to which it can transfer the case. The statute in its present form was drafted to conform with the decision in Click v. Click, 98 W.Va. 419, 127 S.E. 194 (1925). That case held only that an original writ of habeas corpus petition addressed to a circuit court could not be made returnab......
  • Bee v. City Of Huntington
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • September 19, 1933
    ...though apparently warranted by the literal sense of the words used, which would lead to injustice and absurdity." Click v. Click, 98 W. Va. 419, 127 S. E. 194, 198. If units of government are to be abolished and our whole system is to be changed it would seem that the intent of the people t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT