Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/283/52/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/283/52/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Carr v. Zaja, 283 U.S. 52 (1931)
Carr v. Zaja
No. 125
Argued March 2, 1931
Decided March 23, 1931
283 U.S. 52
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
1. Alien held liable to deportation, on the authority of Philippides v. Day, ante, p. 283 U. S. 48.
2. Jurisdiction of this Court to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeal is not defeated by the fact that the mandate of that court was issued and spread upon the record of the district court.
37 F.2d 1016 reversed.
Certiorari, 282 U.S. 816, to review a judgment sustaining an order discharging Zaja on habeas corpus.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises the same question as No. 92, ante, p. 283 U. S. 48, but, as stated in No. 92, was decided the other way by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Zaja is a Dalmatian, citizen of Jugo-Slavia. He shipped as a seaman upon an Italian ship and on its arrival at San Pedro, California, deserted the ship on January 25, 1925. He was arrested on October 4, 1928, more than three years after his entry, and after a hearing was ordered to be deported on the same ground as in No. 92. He obtained a
writ of habeas corpus, and was ordered to be discharged from custody. 37 F.2d 1016. The judgment must be reversed for the reasons given in No. 92. It is objected that the mandate of the circuit court of appeals was not stayed, but was issued to the district court and spread upon its records, and that therefore the case is finished. But that does not defeat the jurisdiction of this Court. The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 110, 166 U. S. 113; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Behlmore, 169 U. S. 644, 169 U. S. 648. Rule 45.
Judgment reversed.
