Cross v. Foote

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cross v. Foote

88 S.E. 594, 17 Ga. App. 802, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 936

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 17, 1916

Docket6940

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 594 (Cross v. Foote) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cross v. Foote, 88 S.E. 594, 17 Ga. App. 802, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 936 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. The writ of habeas corpus may be used as a means of freeing one from illegal custody (Kidd v. Brown, 136 Ga. 85, 87, 70 S. E. 881); but “habeas corpus can not be made a substitute for certiorari, bill of exceptions, or other similar remedial procedure, by which errors and irregularities in judgments or convictions are to be corrected. A conviction can be attacked by habeas corpus only when it is void. A judgment, though founded on no evidence, is not void where the defendant has actually or constructively had his day in court.” Davis v. Smith, 7 Ga. App. 192 (5), 195 (66 S. E. 401).

2. Generally, on the trial of liabeas-corpus proceedings, the legality of the detention alone is to be determined; and whether or not the applicant for the writ is guilty of the charge upon which the right of custody is claimed is not an issue. Stephens v. Henderson, 120 Ga. 218, 220 (47 S. E. 498); Hudson v. Jennings, 134 Ga. 373 (67 S. E. 1037).

3. The answer to the writ of habeas corpus shows that the applicant was detained under and by virtue of a valid judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that the detention at the time of the hearing was lawful. There was therefore no error in remanding the applicant to custody, regardless of whether the trial of the applicant was not free from irregularities, and notwithstanding the person applying for the writ may have been arrested originally, and before her trial and conviction, without lawful warrant or authority. The cases of McDonald v. Farmers Supply Co., 143 Ga. 552 (85 S. E. 861), and Brieswick v. City of Brunswick, 51 Ga. 639 (21 Am. R. 240), cited by counsel for plaintiff in error, are not in point.

Judgment affirmed..

Bussell, G. J., absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wade, J.

1. The writ of habeas corpus may be used as a means of freeing one from illegal custody (Kidd v. Brown, 136 Ga. 85, 87, 70 S. E. 881); but “habeas corpus can not be made a substitute for certiorari, bill of exceptions, or other similar remedial procedure, by which errors and irregularities in judgments or convictions are to be corrected. A conviction can be attacked by habeas corpus only when it is void. A judgment, though founded on no evidence, is not void where the defendant has actually or constructively had his day in court.” Davis v. Smith, 7 Ga. App. 192 (5), 195 (66 S. E. 401).

2. Generally, on the trial of liabeas-corpus proceedings, the legality of the detention alone is to be determined; and whether or not the applicant for the writ is guilty of the charge upon which the right of custody is claimed is not an issue. Stephens v. Henderson, 120 Ga. 218, 220 (47 S. E. 498); Hudson v. Jennings, 134 Ga. 373 (67 S. E. 1037).

3. The answer to the writ of habeas corpus shows that the applicant was detained under and by virtue of a valid judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that the detention at the time of the hearing was lawful. There was therefore no error in remanding the applicant to custody, regardless of whether the trial of the applicant was not free from irregularities, and notwithstanding the person applying for the writ may have been arrested originally, and before her trial and conviction, without lawful warrant or authority. The cases of McDonald v. Farmers Supply Co., 143 Ga. 552 (85 S. E. 861), and Brieswick v. City of Brunswick, 51 Ga. 639 (21 Am. R. 240), cited by counsel for plaintiff in error, are not in point.

Judgment affirmed..

Bussell, G. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 594, 17 Ga. App. 802, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cross-v-foote-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack