Ex parte Lawrence
| Decision Date | 18 December 1812 |
| Citation | 5 Binn. 304 |
| Parties | Ex parte LAWRENCE. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
This court is not bound by the act of 1785 to grant a habeas corpus, where the case has been already heard by another court, upon the same evidence that is suggested to this.
It is not expedient to grant it where the case has been once so heard, and the party has a remedy by homine replegiando.
PHILLIPS on behalf of Ann Lawrence, petitioned the Court for a habeas corpus under the act of 1785, to one Joseph Vogdes, to bring up the body of Adam Lawrence then in his custody as a slave, whereas, according to the suggestion, he was free.
It was stated by the counsel, that the case had been already heard upon a habeas corpus by the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county, who remanded the prisoner; and that there was no new evidence to lay before this Court.
We do not think that the act of assembly obliges this Court to grant a habeas corpus, where the case has been already heard upon the same evidence by another court; and we do not think it expedient in this case, because it has been already heard upon the same evidence, and the party is not without remedy, as he may resort to a homine replegiando. The Court are not however to be understood as saying, that they have not authority to issue a habeas corpus in such a case, if they should think it expedient.
Habeas corpus refused.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miskimmins v. Shaver
...61 Iowa 199, 16 N.W. 91; Ex parte Foster, 5 Tex. Ct. App. 625; Ex parte Robinson, 6 McLean, 356; Ex parte Campbell, 20 Ala. 89; Ex parte Lawrence, 5 Binn. 304; People v. Brady, 56 N.Y. 182. A decision on corpus is not appealable or subject to review; the doctrine of res adjudicata has no ap......
-
State v. Malone
...2 How. 65; Ex parte Dorr, 3 How. 103; Riley's Case, 2 Pick, 172;Nickols v. Giles, 2 Root 461; Husted's Case, 1 Johns. Cas. 136; Ex parte Lawrence, 5 Binn. 304;Commonwealth v. Robinson, 1 Serg. & R. 353;Reddill's Case, 1 Whart. 445; Ex parte Royster, 1 Eng. (Ark.) 28; Ex parte Williamson, 4 ......
-
Williamson v. Lewis
...31 Car. 2, though they would have been within our Act of 1785, and would now be within the statute 56 Geo. 3. Nor is the case Ex parte Lawrence, 5 Binn. 304, any authority to the contrary, for there the application was made to the court in term time, and not to a judge in By the 7th section......