Ex parte Burford

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMARSHALL
Citation2 L.Ed. 495,3 Cranch 448,7 U.S. 448
Decision Date01 February 1806

7 U.S. 448
3 Cranch 448
2 L.Ed. 495
February Term, 1806

JOHN ATKINS BURFORD, a prisoner confined in the jail of the county of Alexandria, in the district of Columbia, petitioned this court for a habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of his commitment, alleging that he was confined under and by colour of process of the United States, and praying for a certiorari to the clerk of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Washington, to certify the record by which his cause of commitment might be examined, and its legality investigated. To the petition was annexed a copy of his commitment, certified by the jailor of Alexandria county.

Hiort, for the petitioner, observed, that he was aware of the decision of this court in the case of Marbury v. Madison, ante, vol. 1, that a mandamus would not lie in this court when it operated as an original process; but there is a vast difference between a mandamus and a writ of habeas corpus. The former is a high prerogative writ, issuing at the discretion of the court, but this is a writ of right, and cannot be refused. The constitution of the United States, art. 1, § 9, declares, 'that it shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.'

By the 14th section of the judiciary act of 1789, vol. 1, p. 58, it is enacted, 'that all the before mentioned courts of the United States,' (including the supreme court) 'shall have power to issue writs of scire facias,

Page 449

habeas corpus, and all other writs,' &c. 'And that either of the justices of the supreme court, as well as judges of the district courts, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus, for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.' If a single justice of this court has the power, it would be a strange construction of the law, and of the constitution, to say that the whole court cannot exercise the same power.

The reason why this court could not exercise its appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case, was stated in the case of the United States v. More, ante, p. 159, to be because no mode of exercising it had been appointed by law, the writ of error extending only to civil cases. But if this is an exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the mode by habeas corpus is expressly provided by the statute, for that purpose.

March 4.


There is some obscurity in the act of congress, and some doubts were entertained by the court as to the construction of the constitution. The court, however, in favour of liberty, was willing to grant the habeas corpus. But the case of the United States v. Hamilton, 3 Dal. 17, is decisive. It was there determined that this court could grant a habeas corpus; therefore, let the writ issue, returnable immediately, together with a certiorari, as prayed.

Upon the return of the habeas corpus, and certiorari, it appeared, that on the 28th of December, 1805, Burford was committed to the jail of Alexandria county, by a warrant under the hands and seals of Jonah Thompson, and ten other justices of the peace for that county; which warrant was in the following words:

Alexandria County, ss.

Whereas John A. Burford, of the county aforesaid, shopkeeper, has been brought before a meeting of many of the justices of the peace for the said county, and by them was required to find sufficient sureties to be bound

Page 450

with him in a recognizance, himself in the sum of four thousand dollars, and securities for the like sum, for his good behaviour towards the citizens of the United States, and their property; and whereas the said John A. Burford hath failed or refused to find such sureties; these are therefore in the name of the United States, to command you the said constables, forthwith to convey the said John A. Burford to the common jail of the said county, and to deliver him to the keeper thereof, together with this precept; and we do, in the name of the said United States, hereby...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 cases
  • People v. Chrisman, Cr. 5908
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 28, 1967
    ...describing * * * the persons or things to be seized,' of course applies to arrest as well as search warrants. See Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch 448, 2 L.Ed. 495; McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 154--157, 47 S.Ct. 319, 323, 71 L.Ed. 580. The protection afforded by these Rules, when they are......
  • Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 6 Div. 979
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • November 2, 1965
    ...course of law. * * *' Also, the constitutional protection from unreasonable seizures applies to a seizing of the person. Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch 448, 2 L.Ed. 495 Hence, we consider ourselves bound to examine § 1159, supra, giving preference (1) to the constitutional rights of free expres......
  • In re Dissenting
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 25, 1927
    ...is quoted as the language of Chief Justice Marshall seems, from the report of the case in Ex parte Burford (1806), 3 Cranch (U. S.) 448, 2 L.Ed. 495, really to have been what was said in argument by attorney Hiort, who represented the prisoner. But, by whomever spoken, the words had referen......
  • Sanders v. United States, 202
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1963
    ...as well as the English was assumed to be the case from the earliest days of federal habeas corpus jurisdiction. Cf. Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch 448, 2 L.Ed. 495 (Chief Justice Marshall). Since then, it has become settled in an unbroken line of decisions. Ex parte Kaine, 3 Blatchf. 1, 5—6 (Mr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

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