Cheong Ah Moy v. United States, 113 U.S. 216 (1885)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
Cheong Ah Moy v. United States, 113 U.S. 216 (1885)Cheong Ah Moy v. United States
Submitted January 9, 1885
Decided January 26, 1885
113 U.S. 216
Syllabus
The Court declines to decide a question arising in a case which no longer exists in regard to rights which it cannot enforce.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Opinions
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The Court declines to decide a question arising in a case which no longer exists in regard to rights which it cannot enforce. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Page 113 U. S. 217 MILLER, J. The plaintiff in error here is a Chinese woman, who, arriving at San Francisco from China, was not permitted to land in that city by reason of the Acts of Congress of May 6, 1882, and the amendatory act of 1884, and, being forcibly kept on board the vessel, sued out a writ of habeas corpus to obtain her release. On a hearing in the circuit court of the United States, it was ordered that she be returned on board the vessel in which she came or some other vessel of the same line to be carried back to China, and she was placed in the custody of the marshal, who was directed to execute the order. On undertaking to do this, it was found that the vessel had sailed, and the marshal placed his prisoner in jail for safekeeping until another vessel should be at hand to remove her. Her counsel, upon this state of facts, applied to the circuit court for permission to give bail on behalf of the woman and have her released from custody. The judges of the circuit court were opposed in opinion on the question of granting this motion, and, having overruled it, have certified the division to this Court. In the meantime, it is made to appear to us by the return of the marshal and by affidavits, that on the second day of October, three days after the order was made overruling the motion, and ten days before the writ of error herein was served by filing it in the clerk's office of the circuit court, the marshal had executed the original order of the court by placing the prisoner on board the steamship New York, one of the Pacific Mail steamships, about to start for China, and that she departed on said vessel on the seventh day of October. It thus appears that the order of deportation had been fully executed, and the petitioner in the writ of habeas corpus placed without the Page 113 U. S. 218 jurisdiction of the court and of the United States six days before the writ of error was filed in the circuit court and several days before it was issued. The question, therefore, which we are asked to decide is a moot question as to plaintiff in error, and if she was permitted to give bail, it could be of no value to her, as the order by which she was remanded has been executed, and she is no longer in the custody of the marshal or in prison. This Court does not sit here to decide questions arising in cases which no longer exist in regard to rights which it cannot enforce. The writ of error is dismissed.
U.S. Supreme Court
Cheong Ah Moy v. United States, 113 U.S. 216 (1885) Cheong Ah Moy v. United States Submitted January 9, 1885 Decided January 26, 1885 113 U.S. 216 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITEDSTATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The Court declines to decide a question arising in a case which no longer exists in regard to rights which it cannot enforce. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Page 113 U. S. 217 MILLER, J. The plaintiff in error here is a Chinese woman, who, arriving at San Francisco from China, was not permitted to land in that city by reason of the Acts of Congress of May 6, 1882, and the amendatory act of 1884, and, being forcibly kept on board the vessel, sued out a writ of habeas corpus to obtain her release. On a hearing in the circuit court of the United States, it was ordered that she be returned on board the vessel in which she came or some other vessel of the same line to be carried back to China, and she was placed in the custody of the marshal, who was directed to execute the order. On undertaking to do this, it was found that the vessel had sailed, and the marshal placed his prisoner in jail for safekeeping until another vessel should be at hand to remove her. Her counsel, upon this state of facts, applied to the circuit court for permission to give bail on behalf of the woman and have her released from custody. The judges of the circuit court were opposed in opinion on the question of granting this motion, and, having overruled it, have certified the division to this Court. In the meantime, it is made to appear to us by the return of the marshal and by affidavits, that on the second day of October, three days after the order was made overruling the motion, and ten days before the writ of error herein was served by filing it in the clerk's office of the circuit court, the marshal had executed the original order of the court by placing the prisoner on board the steamship New York, one of the Pacific Mail steamships, about to start for China, and that she departed on said vessel on the seventh day of October. It thus appears that the order of deportation had been fully executed, and the petitioner in the writ of habeas corpus placed without the Page 113 U. S. 218 jurisdiction of the court and of the United States six days before the writ of error was filed in the circuit court and several days before it was issued. The question, therefore, which we are asked to decide is a moot question as to plaintiff in error, and if she was permitted to give bail, it could be of no value to her, as the order by which she was remanded has been executed, and she is no longer in the custody of the marshal or in prison. This Court does not sit here to decide questions arising in cases which no longer exist in regard to rights which it cannot enforce. The writ of error is dismissed.
Search This Case
