Jones v. Perkins

Decision Date07 January 1918
Docket NumberNo. 738,738
PartiesJONES v. PERKINS, Deputy U. S. Marshal, et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. J. Gordon Jones, of Cordele, Ga., for appellant.

Mr. Solicitor General Davis, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Mr. Chief Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Jones, the appellant, was arrested under a warrant charging him with a failure to register as required by the Act of Congress of May 18, 1917, known as the Selective Draft Law (Public No. 12, 65th Congress, c. 15, 40 Stat. 76), and after a hearing by a United States Commissioner was committed to custody to await the ensuing term of the United States District Court. Alleging that he was illegally restrained because the statute under the assumed authority of which he was held was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, he petitioned the court below for a writ of habeas corpus. Following a rule to show cause and a hearing on the return thereto the petition was denied on the ground that the statute was constitutional (243 Fed. 997), and to reverse the order so adjudging this direct appeal was prosecuted.

It is well settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a trial. Riggins v. United States, 199 U. S. 547, 26 Sup. Ct. 147, 50 L. Ed. 303; Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S. 420, 32 Sup. Ct. 753, 56 L. Ed. 1147; Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245, 33 Sup. Ct. 240, 57 L. Ed. 497. If that rule applied, therefore, our duty would be to affirm unless this case could be treated as coming within the exceptional class. But we do not deem it necessary to enter into that consideration because even if it were found to be embraced in such class every constitutional question relied upon has been this day in Arver v. United States, 245 U. S. 366, 38 Sup. Ct. 159, 62 L. Ed. ——, decided to be without merit. Because of this situation, therefore, without departing from the general principle, we think it sufficies in this case to apply the ruling made in the Arver Case and for the reasons stated in the opinion therein, to affirm.

And it is so ordered.

To continue reading

Request your trial
192 cases
  • Bens v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 30, 1920
    ... ... reviewed by habeas corpus. See the cases cited in the margin ... In the ... recent case of Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 38 ... Sup.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed. 358, the Chief Justice said it was well ... settled that, in the absence of exceptional ... ...
  • Swindler v. Warden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • January 12, 2022
    ... ... affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a ... judgment of conviction by a state court.”); Jones ... v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 381, 38 S.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed ... 358 (1918)(“It is well settled that in the absence of ... ...
  • Friend v. Circuit Court of McDowell Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • August 22, 2022
    ... ... charge prior to a judgment of conviction by a state ... court.”); Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 381, ... 38 S.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed. 358 (1918)(“It is well settled ... that in the absence of exceptional ... ...
  • Washington v. Clemmer, 18602.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 11, 1964
    ...regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a trial." Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391, 38 S.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed. 358 (1918). "The writ of habeas corpus is not intended to serve the office of a writ of error even after verdict; and, fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Fiction of the First Freedom
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly No. 6-2, June 1953
    • June 1, 1953
    ...the civil rights of three persons. 3 Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890); Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918); Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390 (1918); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Minersville School District v.Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940); West Virginia Board of Edu......
  • The Thirteenth Amendment at the Intersection of Class and Gender: Robertson v. Baldwin's Exclusion of Infants, Lunatics, Women, and Seamen
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 39-03, March 2016
    • Invalid date
    ...year, creating a disjuncture that would not be eliminated until 1970, in the midst of the Vietnam War. See id. at 226-27. 53. See Arver, 245 U.S. at 390; Peonage Cases, 123 F. 671, 681 (M.D. Ala. 1903) (distinguishing slavery and involuntary servitude from "the discharge of honorable public......

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