Thomas Kelly v. Elvin Griffin

Decision Date17 April 1916
Docket NumberNo. 777,777
Citation36 S.Ct. 487,60 L.Ed. 861,241 U.S. 6
PartiesTHOMAS KELLY, Appt., v. ELVIN J. GRIFFIN, Jailer of Lake County, Illinois, and John J. Bradley, United States Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. John S. Miller, Edward Osgood Brown, and Pierce Butler for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 7-9 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Almon W. Bulkley, Henry B. F. Macfarland, and Clair E. More for appellees.

[Argument of Counsel from Pages 9-11 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

The appellant was held for extradition to Canada, and petitioned for and obtained a writ of habeas corpus. After a hearing upon the returns to the writ and to a writ of certiorari issued to the commissioner by whose warrant the petitioner was detained, the district judge discharged the writ. An appeal was allowed and several objections have been pressed to the proceeding, which we will take up in turn. The matter arises out of frauds in the construction of the new Parliament buildings at Winnipeg, in which Kelly, the contractor, and a number of public men, are alleged to have been involved.

First it is said that jurisdiction of the appellant's person has not been obtained legally. On October 1, 1915, he was arrested without a warrant, on a telegram from Winnipeg. The next day a complaint was made before the commissioner by the British Vice Consul General in Chicago upon ifformation Consul General in Chicago upon information the petitioner was turned over to the United States marshal by the Chicago police. On October 15 a new complaint was filed by the British Consul General, a new warrant was placed in the hands of the marshal, and the former complaint was dismissed. Wright v. Henkel, 190 U. S. 40, 42, 44, 63, 47 L. ed. 948, 949, 956, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 781, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 386. The contention is that the original arrest was illegal, and that the appellant was entitled to be set at liberty before the warrant of October 2 or that of October 15 could be executed with effect.

But however illegal the arrest by the Chicago police, it does not follow that the taking of the appellant's body by the marshal under the warrant of October 2 was void. The action of the officers of the state or city did not affect the jurisdiction of the commissioner of the United States. Furthermore, the order dismissing the complaint of October 2 was that the appellant be discharged forthwith from custody; so that, on the face of the record, it would seem that before being held under the present warrant the appellant had the moment of freedom which he contends was his right. It is urged that the Canadian authorities are trying to take advantage of their own wrong. But the appellant came within reach of the commissioner's warrant by his own choice, and the most that can be said is that the effective exercise of authority was made easier by what had been done. It was not even argued that the appellant was entitled to a chance to escape before either of the warrants could be executed. This proceeding is not a fox hunt. But merely to be declared free in a room with the marshal standing at the door having another warrant in his hand would be an empty form. We are of opinion that, in the circumstances of this case as we have stated them, the omission of a formal act of release and a subsequent arrest, if they were omitted, furnishes no ground for discharging the appellant upon habeas corpus. All the intimations and decisions of this court indicate that the detention of the appelant cannot be declared void. Pettibone v. Nichols, 203 U. S. 192, 51 L. ed. 148, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111, 7 Ann. Cas. 1047; Iasigi v. Van de Carr, 166 U. S. 391, 393, 394, 41 L. ed. 1045, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 595; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 662, 35 L. ed. 1146, 1150, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 336. If we were satisfied that a different rule would be applied by the final authority in Great Britain, other questions would arise. Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447, 57 L. ed. 1274, 46 L.R.A.(N.S.) 397, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 945. But we are not convinced by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Factor v. Laubenheimer
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1933
    ...the District Court, 61 F.(2d) 626, on the ground that the offense was a crime in Illinois, as had been declared in Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U.S. 6, 36 S.Ct. 487, 60 L.Ed. 861. This Court granted certiorari, 289 U.S. 713, 53 S.Ct. 523, 790, 77 L.Ed. 1467, on a petition which presented as ground......
  • Freedman v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • July 18, 1977
    ...or whether it had done so solely in reliance upon its own investigation and award of payment. Id. at 362. See Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U.S. 6, 36 S.Ct. 487, 60 L.Ed. 861 (1916). Fahrquaharson stated in his affidavit that he would not have purchased the stock had he known that King had received......
  • Matter of Extradition of Valdez-Mainero
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • May 8, 1998
    ...Reply to the Government's Response re: Extradition, at p. 2 (quoting Russell, 789 F.2d at 803 (citing Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U.S. 6, 14, 36 S.Ct. 487, 60 L.Ed. 861 (1916))). At the first hearing in this case, the discussion between the Court and counsel focused on how to reconcile the holdin......
  • Zhenli Ye Gon v. Holt
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • December 16, 2014
    ...will violate its Treaty obligations by trying, detaining, or punishing Ye Gon on the additional charges. Cf. Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U.S. 6, 15, 36 S.Ct. 487, 60 L.Ed. 861 (1916) (“We assume, of course, that the government in Canada will respect the convention between the United States and Gr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Risks of Noncompliance
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Compliance: Perspectives and Resources for Corporate Counselors Perspectives on Antitrust Compliance Perspectives on Designing Compliance Programs
    • January 1, 2010
    ...2008/233966.pdf. 131. See Hammond, Charting New Waters , supra note 6, at 12. 132. See id . See also Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U.S. 6, 14 (1916) (allowing extradition on perjury, among other charges, where conduct was criminal in both jurisdictions); Manta v. Chertoff, 518 F.3d 1134, Therefore,......

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