Ross v. Alber

• Decision Date: 14 November 1939
• Docket Number: 44916.
• Citation: 288 N.W. 406,227 Iowa 408
• Parties: ROSS v. ALBER et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

288 N.W. 406

227 Iowa 408

ROSS v. ALBER et al.

No. 44916.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

November 14, 1939

Appeal from Municipal Court of Des Moines; C. S. Cooter, Judge.

From an order sustaining a writ of habeas corpus sued out by plaintiff and discharging plaintiff from the custody of defendants the latter appealed.

Affirmed.

On appeal in proceedings at law such as habeas corpus proceeding, the Supreme Court decides only matters presented for review in assignments of error.

Fred D. Everett, Atty. Gen., Jens Grothe, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Francis J. Kuble, Co. Atty., James P. Irish, Asst. Co. Atty and R. O. Garber, all of Des Moines, for appellants.

A. D Pugh, of Des Moines, for appellee.

RICHARDS, Justice.

Upon the petition of plaintiff a writ of habeas corpus was allowed by the trial court, to test the validity of the arrest and restraint of plaintiff by defendants under a warrant issued by the Governor of Iowa in a proceeding for extradition of plaintiff to the state of New Hampshire. The writ was served on defendants. The hearing resulted in an order sustaining the writ and discharging the plaintiff. Therefrom defendants appealed.

Appellants' one and only assignment of error is in these words: " The court erred in releasing appellee. Defendants' custody of him was legal and proper, the same being pursuant to and by virtue of a legally issued writ of extradition." This assignment of error exhibits no attempt to specify or point out any complaint against the ruling of the court. If, to discover some complaint, one searches appellants' argument that follows a citation of numerous cases, he may there find the following statement " As we understand the claims of the appellee, the only issue in this case is whether or not the appellee, Carroll M Ross, was a fugitive from justice." Apparently assuming the correctness of their alleged understanding, appellants confine their argument to a discussion of a fact question, that was before the trial court, whether it did or did not appear that plaintiff was such a fugitive. If it be assumed arguendo that, despite our Rule 30, complaint against the ruling of the court may be ascertained from these matters found in the argument, without enlightenment from the assignment of errors, the only complaint on the part of appellants even in that way discoverable, is that plaintiff was a fugitive from justice and for that reason the court erred in releasing him. But our difficulty is that there were before the trial court other issues in addition to this fact question. Plaintiff's petition for the writ set out several grounds on which he founded the claim that his arrest and detention were unlawful. Some of these went to another vital matter, that...