Ex parte Rosenblat

51 Cal. 285
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1876
DocketNo. 10,200
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 51 Cal. 285 (Ex parte Rosenblat) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex parte Rosenblat, 51 Cal. 285 (Cal. 1876).

Opinion

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

Under the Constitution of the United States and the act of Congress, a State is bound to surrender a fugitive for whom a proper requisition has been-issued by the Governor of the sister State. The act of the Legislature was passed as auxiliary to the proceedings under the Constitution and act of Congress, but is based solely on principles of comity; and the Legislature had power to affix as many conditions as to the mode in which the preliminary arrest and examination should be conducted as the Legislature deemed proper.

We are inclined to the belief that a person thus arrested, with a view to his being surrendered on requisition expected to arrive, is entitled to his discharge if his examination is not brought on before the magistrate within six days. The act of the Legislature which authorizes such preliminary arrest should be strictly complied with, but we do not think it necessary to decide that question in the present case.

[288]*288This is not a ease in which writs have been issued both from a State court and a United States court, where the officer of the State or Federal court,, as the case may be, first serving the writ is entitled to retain possession of the body.

We think, reference being had to the obligation imposed by the Constitution of the United States, that the same rule is applicable to a proceeding under a requisition from the Governor of another State as applies when the question is between a criminal proceeding initiated in this State and a civil action. In such case the interest of the private suitor who has caused a defendant to be arrested must yield to the paramount interest of the people of the State.

Ordered that H. H. Ellis, chief of police of the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, be, and he is hereby authorized to serve the warrant of arrest issued by the Governor of the State of California, upon the requisition of the Governor of the State of New York, for the surrender and delivery of Bosenblat, and to deliver said Bosenblat to Bichard O’Connor, agent of the State of New York ; and the sheriff of said city and county is hereby authorized and directed to surrender and deliver the body of said Samson Bosenblat into the custody of said H. H. Ellis, chief of police as aforesaid, for the purposes aforesaid.

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

Related

Burton v. State
377 S.W.2d 900 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1964)
In re Schefstad
121 P.2d 755 (California Court of Appeal, 1942)
State v. Engle
162 A. 922 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1932)
Raine v. State
143 Tenn. 168 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1920)
Burton v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
245 U.S. 315 (Supreme Court, 1917)
Pickelsimer v. . Glazener
92 S.E. 700 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Hyland v. Rochelle
100 N.E. 842 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1913)
Opinion of the Justices to the Governor & Council
89 N.E. 174 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Petition of Harriott for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
25 A. 349 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Cal. 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-rosenblat-cal-1876.