Ex Parte Mckee
Supreme Court of Missouri
Application for a habeas corpus. The petitioner stated that he was illegally imprisoned in the jail of St. Louis county, under the pretended authority of a certain commitment issued by a notary public of said county. A copy of the commitment was annexed to the petition, and it was agreed that the legality of the imprisonment should be considered upon the application, in the same manner as if a writ had been issued to the jailor and returned.
Read the full summary
Application for a habeas corpus. The petitioner stated that he was illegally imprisoned in the jail of St. Louis county, under the pretended authority of a certain commitment issued by a notary public of said county. A copy of the commitment was annexed to the petition, and it was agreed that the legality of the imprisonment should be considered upon the application, in the same manner as if a writ had been issued to the jailor and returned. The commitment stated in substance that the petitioner was summoned before the notary to give his deposition as a witness, in a certain cause pending in…
1Opinion of the Court
Gamble, Judge,
orally delivered the opinion of the court.
The sixth section of the second article of the act concerning “ habeas corpus” (R. 0. 1845) provides, that it shall be the duty of the court or magistrate before whom any party is brought on a writ of habeas corpus, forthwith to remand the party, if it shall appear that he is detained in custody “ for any contempt specially and plainly charged in the commitment by some court, officer or body having authority to commit for a contempt so charged.” The tenth section of the same article provides that “ no court shall have power to enquire…
2Cited by23 opinions
- In Re Martin, Jr.Ohio Supreme Court · 1943
- Ex parte MunfordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- In re HuronSupreme Court of Kansas · 1897
- In re SanfordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- In re HammondNebraska Supreme Court · 1909
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.