In re Stacy
New York Supreme Court
dN the 21 st of July, 1813, Nathan Williams, Esq. one ot the commissioners of this court, allowed a habeas corpus, en- * 1 dorsed “ by the statute,” and directed to “ Isaac Chauncey, commandant of the navy of the United States on Lake Ontario„ ^ *° Morgan.
Read the full summary
dN the 21 st of July, 1813, Nathan Williams, Esq. one ot the commissioners of this court, allowed a habeas corpus, en- * 1 dorsed “ by the statute,” and directed to “ Isaac Chauncey, commandant of the navy of the United States on Lake Ontario„ ^ *° Morgan. Lewis, commanding the troops of the United at the station of Sackett’s Harbour, and to each and every subordinate officer under the said commandants, or either of them; and by which they were commanded to bring before him the body of Samuel Stacy, jun. together with the, Cause, &C. The habeas corpus was grounded on the following affidavits:…
1Opinion of the Court
Kent, Ch. J.
The return is insufficient and bad upon the face of it. The writ was directed to Morgan Lewis, as commander of the troops’of the United States, at Sackett’s Harbour; and under his title of “ General of Division in the Army of the United States,” he simply "returns “ that the within-named Samuel Stacy, jun. is not in my custody.” This was evidently an evasive return. He ought to have stated, if he meant to excuse himself for the non-production of the body of the party, that Stacy was not in his possession or power. The case of The King v. Winton (5 Term Rep. 89.) is to this point;…
2Cited by20 opinions
- McConologue's caseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Reynolds v. Confederate StatesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1863
- Ex parte AndersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- In re HopsonNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- Commonwealth ex rel. Bressler v. GaneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.