State ex rel. Keyes v. Buckham
| Decision Date | 23 October 1882 |
| Citation | 13 N.W. 902,29 Minn. 462 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota ex rel. A. D. Keyes v. Thomas S. Buckham |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
On the return to a writ of habeas corpus, allowed for the relief of one Shaw, in confinement under a judgment of a justice of the peace, and after argument, the respondent, as judge of the district court for Rice county, made an order discharging Shaw from custody. Thereupon the relator, as county attorney, sued out a writ of certiorari.
Writ of certiorari quashed.
A. D. Keyes, relator, pro se.
J. B. & T. H. Quinn, for respondent.
A proceeding in habeas corpus is a special proceeding, not only because it is not an ordinary civil action, but because it is so expressly classified in our statutes. Gen. St. 1878, c. 80, tit. 3. An order discharging a person brought up on a writ of habeas corpus is a final order, because it fully disposes of, and makes an end of, the proceeding in which it is made. It follows that such order may be brought to this court for a full review by appeal, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 86, § 8, which, inter alia, provides that an appeal may be taken by an aggrieved party to the supreme court "from a final order, affecting a substantial right, made in a special proceeding." If, as is alleged in the case at bar, a person imprisoned for crime is wrongfully discharged upon habeas corpus, the state is the aggrieved party whose substantial right is affected. As an appeal lies from an order of discharge in habeas corpus proceedings, a certiorari does not lie, it being the settled doctrine of this court that certiorari will not lie in a case in which the appellate jurisdiction of this court can be adequately invoked by appeal. State v. Probate Court of Hennepin Co., 28 Minn. 381, 10 N.W. 209.
Writ of certiorari quashed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carruth v. Taylor
...arbitrary terms the contrary rule. The matter seems to have been taken for granted by the learned Courts whose decisions are cited. In State v. Buckham the Court say: proceeding in habeas corpus is a special proceeding, not only because it is not an ordinary civil action, but because it is ......
-
Wisener v. Burrell
...under a statute which gives an appeal from a final order affecting a substantial right, made in a special proceeding. See State v. Buckham, 29 Minn. 462, 13 N.W. 902, Winton v. Knott, 7 S. D. 179, 63 N.W. 783. By virtue of a provision of section 21 of the 'Enabling Act' (Act June 16, 1908, ......
-
Ex parte Tail
... ... that the application did not state facts sufficient to ... constitute a cause of action for allowance of the ... 1096, § 43; 1 C.J. 1010; ... 29 C.J. 8; People ex rel. Curtis v. Kidney, 225 N.Y. 299, 122 ... N.E. 241; Winnovich v. Emery, 33 ... court." See, also, State ex rel. Keyes v. Buckham, 29 ... Minn. 462, 13 N.W. 902. In Ex parte Edwards, 11 Fla ... ...
-
State ex rel. C. Beekley v. McDonald
... ... [123 ... Minn. 86] The appeal is without merit. Habeas corpus is ... essentially civil in its nature. State v. Buckham, ... 29 Minn. 462, 13 N.W. 902; State v. Huegin, 110 Wis ... 189, 85 N.W. 1046, 62 L.R.A. 700; 21 Cyc. 342; Ex parte Tom ... Tong, 108 U.S. 556, ... ...