McCandless v. United States ex rel. Murphy

47 F.2d 1072, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3628
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedMarch 26, 1931
DocketNo. 4510
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 47 F.2d 1072 (McCandless v. United States ex rel. Murphy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McCandless v. United States ex rel. Murphy, 47 F.2d 1072, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3628 (3d Cir. 1931).

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In this case it appears by her own present and former frank and voluntary statement, that Maggie Agnes Murphy, an immigrant, entered the United States by wrongfully obtaining papers, quota status, etc., in the name of her sister. In view thereof, there can be no doubt that she subjected herself to deportation. The contention made that she was taken to the immigration station without previous arrest and there questioned in no way affects her status as subject to deportation as one unlawfully entering the country. See Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U. S. 149, 44 S. Ct. 54, 57, 68 L. Ed. 221, where it was held:

“Irregularities on the part of the government official prior to, or in connection with, the arrest would not necessarily invalidate later proceedings in all respects conformable to law. ‘A writ of habeas corpus is not like an action to recover damages for an unlawful arrest or commitment, but its object is to ascertain whether the prisoner can lawfully be detained in custody; and if sufficient ground for his detention by the government is shown, he is not to be discharged for defects in the original arrest or commitment.’ ”

It is therefore clear that on the habeas corpus proceeding in the court below her petition for discharge should have been denied and' she remanded to the charge of the immigration authorities. So holding, the record will be remanded, with directions to the court below to dismiss her petition and to remand her to the charge of the immigration officer.

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

Related

S- AND B-C
9 I. & N. Dec. 436 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1961)
Clarke v. Landon
139 F. Supp. 113 (D. Massachusetts, 1956)
United States Ex Rel. Fink v. Reimer
96 F.2d 217 (Second Circuit, 1938)
United States Ex Rel. Leibowitz v. Schlotfeldt
94 F.2d 263 (Seventh Circuit, 1938)
United States ex rel. Fink v. Reimer
16 F. Supp. 487 (S.D. New York, 1936)
United States ex rel. Di Costanzo v. Uhl
6 F. Supp. 791 (S.D. New York, 1934)
Vilarino v. Garrity
50 F.2d 582 (Ninth Circuit, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 F.2d 1072, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccandless-v-united-states-ex-rel-murphy-ca3-1931.