Kauffman v. Mount

Fifth Circuit

Kauffman v. Mount

131 F.2d 112, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2728

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 5, 1942

DocketNo. 10260

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 F.2d 112 (Kauffman v. Mount) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kauffman v. Mount, 131 F.2d 112, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2728 (5th Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, held by the Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia, on process in aid of an interstate rendition sought by the Governor of the State of Tennessee, applied for and was granted a writ of habeas corpus.

Respondent answered insisting, that the petition was without merit, but that whether so or not the matter of the custody being one of State concern should be left to the State Courts for determination. The District Judge agreeing with this view discharged the writ and petitioner has appealed.

Except under unusual and extraordinary circumstances a Federal Court will not entertain a petition for habeas corpus in respect of custody resting on State proceedings. Cunningham v. Skiriotes, 5 Cir., 101 F.2d 635; Rogers v. Peck, 199 U.S. 425, 26 S.Ct. 87, 50 L.Ed. 256; Cook v. Hart, 146 U.S. 183, 13 S.Ct. 40, 36 L.Ed. 934; Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U.S. 231, 245, 16 S.Ct. 297, 40 L.Ed. 406. This is true in regard to custody taken in proceedings for interstate rendition. Ex parte Dawson, 8 Cir., 83 F. 306; In re Strauss, 2 Cir., 126 F. 327.

The judgment discharging the writ was right and is affirmed.

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

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, held by the Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia, on process in aid of an interstate rendition sought by the Governor of the State of Tennessee, applied for and was granted a writ of habeas corpus.

Respondent answered insisting, that the petition was without merit, but that whether so or not the matter of the custody being one of State concern should be left to the State Courts for determination. The District Judge agreeing with this view discharged the writ and petitioner has appealed.

Except under unusual and extraordinary circumstances a Federal Court will not entertain a petition for habeas corpus in respect of custody resting on State proceedings. Cunningham v. Skiriotes, 5 Cir., 101 F.2d 635; Rogers v. Peck, 199 U.S. 425, 26 S.Ct. 87, 50 L.Ed. 256; Cook v. Hart, 146 U.S. 183, 13 S.Ct. 40, 36 L.Ed. 934; Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U.S. 231, 245, 16 S.Ct. 297, 40 L.Ed. 406. This is true in regard to custody taken in proceedings for interstate rendition. Ex parte Dawson, 8 Cir., 83 F. 306; In re Strauss, 2 Cir., 126 F. 327.

The judgment discharging the writ was right and is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F.2d 112, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kauffman-v-mount-ca5-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack