Legal Opinion

Ex parte Marinaro

District Court, W.D. New York

Decided November 30, 1929PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAZEL, District Judge.

The undisputed facts set forth in the petition for the writ of habeas eorpus last granted, show sufficient cause for its allowance. The bail bond on the first writ was on file in the office of the clerk of this court and was of continued force during the delay of the hearing thereon." The sureties were, so to speak, relator’s jailors. They were his custodians, subject to his surrender and obedience to the orders of the court. Reese v. U. S., 9 Wall. 13, 19 L. Ed. 541. His crossing Niagara River to Canada on August 17, 1921, and his return on the same day, in view of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Reese v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
  2. United States Ex Rel. Claussen v. DaySupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  3. Weedin v. Banzo OkadaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1924
  4. United States ex rel. Claussen v. CurranCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
  5. In re HersvikDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1924

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. Siegel v. ReimerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1938
  2. United States ex rel. Williams v. KarnuthDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API