Salinger v. Loisel
265 U.S. 224 (1924)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224 (1924)

Salinger v. Loisel

Nos. 341, 342, 705

Argued January 14, 15, 1924

Decided May 26, 1924

265 U.S. 224

Syllabus

1. Warrants of removal issued in triplicate are in legal effect but a single warrant, and defendant, who had secured a supersedeas on appeal from an order refusing relief by habeas corpus from arrest under one, could not lawfully be arrested under another. P. 265 U. S. 228.

2. Where an accused person, on being surrendered by his surety and instituting habeas corpus proceedings, is rearrested in removal proceedings, due practice requires that a test of the second confinement, involving only the same questions, be had by amendment of the existing petition in habeas corpus, and, where a second petition is erroneously brought, the two should be consolidated and heard as one case, thus avoiding the confusion and expense of double appeals. P. 265 U. S. 229.

3. The common law doctrine of res judicata does not extend to a decision on habeas corpus refusing to discharge a prisoner. P. 265 U. S. 230.

4. But, in the exercise of its sound, judicial discretion "to dispose of the party as law and justice may require" (Rev.Stats. § 761), a federal court may base its refusal to discharge on a prior refusal, and, as a safeguard against abuse of the writ, the applicant in any case may be required to show whether he has made a prior application, and, if so, what was done on it. Id.

5. Under the Sixth Amendment, an accused cannot be tried in one district under an indictment showing that the offense was committed in another district. P. 265 U. S. 232.

Page 265 U. S. 225

6. Nor is there any authority for a removal to a district other than that in which the trial may constitutionally be had. P. 265 U. S. 232.

7. Under § 215 of the Criminal Code, to knowingly cause a letter to be delivered by mail in accordance with the direction thereon for the purpose of executing a fraudulent scheme is an offense separate from that of mailing the letter or causing it to be mailed for the same purpose, and, where the letter is so delivered as directed, the person who caused the mailing causes the delivery at the place of delivery, and may be prosecuted in that district although he was not present there. P. 265 U. S. 233.

8. Under Jud.Code § 53, when a district contains several divisions, the trial (in the language of the statute, the "prosecution") of an offense must be in the division where it was committed, unless the accused consents otherwise, but the indictment may lawfully be returned in another division of the same district. P. 265 U. S. 235.

9. Resistance to removal having been unreasonably protracted, the Court directs immediate issuance of its mandate, with order requiring that the accused, under his bonds, surrender himself within ten days to the marshal in the district of the removal proceeding or the district of the indictment. P. 265 U. S. 238.

Nos. 341 and 342 affirmed. 295 F. 498 (No. 705) reversed.

Appeals from two orders of the district court refusing release in habeas corpus, and certiorari to a judgment of the circuit court of appeals affirming a like order made on a third application.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.