Ex parte Layne

D. Massachusetts

Ex parte Layne

269 F. 463, 1920 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 837

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedDecember 13, 1920

DocketNo. 1919

StatusPublished

This text of 269 F. 463 (Ex parte Layne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex parte Layne, 269 F. 463, 1920 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 837 (D. Mass. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

MORTON, District Judge.

This case was heard on the petition for the writ, the motion to dismiss, and the answer. , Such evidence was introduced as either party desired to offer.

The facts are similar to those in the Crowley Case, 268 Fed. 1016, with which this was heard, except that no question is made but what Payne was in the state of Michigan at the time alleged in the complaints. The only points relied on in his behalf are that the provisions of R. S. § 5278 (Comp. St. § 10126)', and of the Michigan statutes (Comp. Paws 1915, § 15891), require the expenses of extradition to be paid by the demanding state, and that in this case the demanding state has expressly exempted itself from paying them, and they are in fact being paid by a creditor of Crowley & Co., who was pursuing him.

This same point was raised and argued in the Graves Case, 269 Fed. 461, which I have just decided and is covered by what is said in the opinion in that case and the decision there cited.

The petition must be dismissed. Inasmuch as all questions of law involved have been settled by decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and there is no doubtful question of fact, the execution of the extradition warrant ought not to be further interfered with or delayed by these proceedings. I shall therefore follow the practice ápproved in this circuit hy Judges Putnam and Powell in Storti’s Case (C. C.) 109 Fed. 809, although I am aware that some doubt has been expressed about it, and refuse to allow an appeal, which in my opinion would be frivolous.

Petition dismissed.

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

MORTON, District Judge.

This case was heard on the petition for the writ, the motion to dismiss, and the answer. , Such evidence was introduced as either party desired to offer.

The facts are similar to those in the Crowley Case, 268 Fed. 1016, with which this was heard, except that no question is made but what Payne was in the state of Michigan at the time alleged in the complaints. The only points relied on in his behalf are that the provisions of R. S. § 5278 (Comp. St. § 10126)', and of the Michigan statutes (Comp. Paws 1915, § 15891), require the expenses of extradition to be paid by the demanding state, and that in this case the demanding state has expressly exempted itself from paying them, and they are in fact being paid by a creditor of Crowley & Co., who was pursuing him.

This same point was raised and argued in the Graves Case, 269 Fed. 461, which I have just decided and is covered by what is said in the opinion in that case and the decision there cited.

The petition must be dismissed. Inasmuch as all questions of law involved have been settled by decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and there is no doubtful question of fact, the execution of the extradition warrant ought not to be further interfered with or delayed by these proceedings. I shall therefore follow the practice ápproved in this circuit hy Judges Putnam and Powell in Storti’s Case (C. C.) 109 Fed. 809, although I am aware that some doubt has been expressed about it, and refuse to allow an appeal, which in my opinion would be frivolous.

Petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 F. 463, 1920 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-layne-mad-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack