Ex parte Sullivan
Decision Date | 02 February 1948 |
Docket Number | 3514. |
Citation | 189 P.2d 338,65 Nev. 128 |
Parties | Ex parte SULLIVAN. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appeal from Seventh Judicial District Court, White Pine County Harry M. Watson, Judge.
Proceeding in the matter of the application of Daniel Sullivan for a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release from custody under an extradition warrant, opposed by Thomas J. McLaughlin as sheriff of the County of White Pine. From an order discharging petitioner from custody and from an order denying sheriff a new trial, sheriff appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Alan Bible, Atty. Gen., Geo. P. Annand and Homer Mooney, Deputy Attys. Gen., and C.J. McFadden, Dist. Atty of Ely, for appellant.
Gray & Horton, of Ely, and Wm. J. Cashill, of Reno, for respondent.
This purports to be an appeal by Thomas J. McLaughlin, as sheriff of the County of White Pine, State of Nevada, from an order of the presiding judge of the Seventh Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of White Pine discharging one Daniel Sullivan from the custody of said sheriff, after a hearing duly had upon a writ of habeas corpus issued out of said court. The appeal also purports to be from an order of said court denying the said sheriff a new trial.
The said Daniel Sullivan, at the time of the issuance of said writ of habeas corpus, and of the making of said order of discharge, was being held by the said sheriff, after the said Sullivan had been arrested pursuant to an extradition warrant issued by the Governor of the State of Nevada upon the requisition of the Governor of the State of Michigan, for the return of the said Sullivan to the County of Macomb, in said last mentioned state, to answer for a crime alleged to have been committed there by the said Sullivan.
The respondent in this proceeding, Daniel Sullivan, has moved this court to dismiss the appeal of the said sheriff, and the question now before this court is whether, under the Constitution and laws of the State of Nevada, an appeal to this court lies to review an order of a district court, or judge, in a habeas corpus proceeding, either discharging a prisoner, or refusing to discharge him and dismissing his petition.
Our Habeas Corpus Act, N.C.L.1929, vol. 5, Secs. 11375-11414, contains no provision conferring the right of appeal, either upon the petitioner for the writ, or upon the respondent to whom it is directed. Neither our Constitution, nor our statutes, contain any express provision for appeal in habeas corpus cases.
The question, then, more precisely stated, is whether, in the absence of a constitutional or statutory provision expressly conferring the right of appeal, an appeal will lie in a habeas corpus proceeding at the instance of either the prisoner being held in custody on a criminal charge, or, on the other hand, on behalf of the officer, or the state, resisting his discharge, from an order denying the discharge of the prisoner, or from an order discharging him.
Upon this important question, as upon many others in the realm of jurisprudence, we find the authorities in irreconcilable conflict.
The very great weight of authority, however, is to the effect that, in the absence of express statutory authorization, no appeal will lie to the Supreme Court from such an order or judgment of the lower court, or judge, in a habeas corpus proceeding, where the party being deprived of his liberty is held upon criminal process. This is also the rule at common law. 2 Am.Jur. 922, sec. 122, and the cases cited in support of the text; Edmonson v. Ramsey, 122 Miss. 450, 84 So. 455, 10 A.L.R. 385; Baird v. Nagel, 194 Ind. 87, 142 N.E. 9, 30 A.L.R. 1322, and the many cases cited and discussed in the notes; see, also, 29 C.J. p. 183, and the cases cited in footnote 14; 39 C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, § 109.
The courts of a few states have taken the opposite view, notably the Supreme Courts of Kansas, Wisconsin (in the earlier cases--they have now a statute conferring the right of appeal on either party), Utah, South Dakota and Washington. The principal Kansas case on the question appears to be Miller v. Gordon, 93 Kan. 382, 144 p. 274, Ann.Cas.1916D, 502, which overruled the earlier case of Cook v. Wyatt, 60 Kan. 535, 57 P. 130.
In State ex rel Durner v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 85 N.W. 1046, 62 L.R.A. 700, the opinion is ably prepared and deals exhaustively with other questions, but same is of slight importance upon the question of the right of appeal in habeas corpus proceedings in the absence of statute, as Wisconsin had theretofore enacted their statute, Statutes of Wisconsin, 1898, sec. 3043, conferring upon either party the right of review by a writ of error. State ex rel. Durner v. Huegin, however, 'set out with seeming approval' (10 A.L.R. p. 392) the earlier case of State ex rel. McCaslin v. Smith, 65 Wis. 93, 26 N.W. 258. In the latter case, on pages 258, 259 of 26 N.W., it is stated:
In Utah, the earlier cases of In re Clasby, 3 Utah 183, 1 P. 852, and Mead v. Metcalf, 7 Utah 103, 25 P. 729, set forth, ably and clearly, strong reasons why at least appeal by the state or by the officer detaining the prisoner should not be sanctioned. The Clasby case is quoted from at length in the note in 10 A.L.R. pages 393, 394. That case is also referred to in Wisener v. Burrell, 28 Okl. 546, 118 p. 999, on page 1000, 39 L.R.A.,N.S., 755, Ann.Cas.1912D, 356, on page 358 of the latter, as 'one of the best-reasoned cases on this question,' and the opinion is extensively quoted.
We will now quote from the other of the earlier Utah cases, Mead v. Metcalf, supra. The opinion in that case, 25 P. 729, 730, is, in part, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shum v. Fogliani
...also the construction placed on that statute by judicial decision. Snyder v. Garrett, 61 Nev. 85, 115 P.2d 769 (1941); Ex Parte Sullivan, 65 Nev. 128, 189 P.2d 338 (1948). It is not our function to say what we think the policy ought to be. It is our duty to follow the statute as My research......
-
State ex rel. Orsborn v. Fogliani
...Our statute governing the availability of the writ of habeas corpus was borrowed verbatim from California. In the Matter of Sullivan, 65 Nev. 128, 189 P.2d 338 (1948); In the Matter of Fitzgerald, 65 Nev. 157, 189 P.2d 352 (1948). The California courts have used the writ to reach such matte......
-
Kussman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For Clark County
...would essentially restore the law as it existed before 1953. So the law had stood since enacted in 1862. Under it, In the Matter of Sullivan, 65 Nev. 128, 189 P.2d 338 (1948), a lengthy opinion by Justice Horsey, summarized by the court at page 154, held that there was no statutory right of......
-
Hubbard Business Plaza v. Lincoln Liberty Life
...it is presumed to have intended to adopt the construction placed on that law by the highest court of that state. Ex parte Sullivan, 65 Nev. 128, 189 P.2d 338, 342 (1948). The First and Second Claims for Relief of Lincoln's Counterclaim allege breach of contract. The Third Claim charges Neva......