McFarland v. Johnson
Texas Supreme Court
Appellee was enrolled by appellant as a conscript. On the 2d of March, 1863, appellee sued out the writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging that, he was illegally restrained of his liberty by appellant. On the trial in the Court below, appellee was discharged ; from which judgment appellant prosecuted his appeal.
Read the full summary
Appellee was enrolled by appellant as a conscript. On the 2d of March, 1863, appellee sued out the writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging that, he was illegally restrained of his liberty by appellant. On the trial in the Court below, appellee was discharged ; from which judgment appellant prosecuted his appeal. Held, that the respondent, on an application for the writ of Habeas Corpus, cannot appeal from a judgment of the District Court, or a Judge sitting in Chambers; and that an appeal in such cases is restricted to the applicant. A proceeding upon a writ of Habeas Corpus, when not used to relieve…
1Opinion of the Court
Moore J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court, cited, Widdington v. Sloan, 15 B. Mon., 147; Bell v. The State, 4 Gill, 304; Wade v. Judge, 5 Ala.; Beury v. Mercier, 6 How., 103; How v. The State, 9 Miss., 690; Russell v. The Commonwealth, 1st P. & Watts, 82; ex parte Perkins, 2 Cal., 424; Holmes v. Jennison, 14th Peters, 540; Yates v. The People, 6 Johns., 338; ex parte La Fonta, 2 Rob., 495; Cowan v. Briggs, 16 Peck., 203; The State v. Cheesman, 2 South., 445; The State v. Enet and The State v. Potter, Dudley Law Rep., S. C., 295.
Appeal dismissed.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- In re PerkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
- Bell v. State ex rel. MillerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1846
- The Heirs of C. And M. De Armas v. The United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1848
- Ex parte LafontaSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1842