People Ex Rel. Donovan v. . Conner

New York Court of Appeals

People Ex Rel. Donovan v. . Conner

64 N.Y. 481, 1876 N.Y. LEXIS 94

DecidedApril 4, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 64 N.Y. 481 (People Ex Rel. Donovan v. . Conner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People Ex Rel. Donovan v. . Conner, 64 N.Y. 481, 1876 N.Y. LEXIS 94 (N.Y. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order quashing writ of habeas corpus can only be reviewed by an appeal from the order. A writ of error will not lie in such a case. The papers upon both sides submitted upon this motion are so very defective that it is impossible to determine the merits involved, even if we had the power to pass upon them as we would have upon a regular appeal from the order complained of. The relator is not without remedy if the commitment by the surrogate was unauthorized and in excess of the power vested in that magistrate. Whether the surrogate had power to impose the fine of §250 and commit the relator to prison until the same should be paid may be questionable, and upon the question of power the briefs of the counsel give no light, and as we cannot decide it we do not examine it. Doubtless the court below might have disregarded the defects of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, and considered and disposed of the application of the relator for discharge upon the merits. The relator may now either appeal from the order quashing the writ, if he shall be advised that such dismissal was a legal error, or he may proceed de novo by a proper petition and a new writ of habeas corpus. The proceedings already had will not embarrass him, and his right to a discharge can be summarily decided.

As the writ of error gives this court no jurisdiction in the premises, it must be quashed, but without costs.

All concur.

Ordered accordingly

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

Per Curiam.

The order quashing writ of habeas corpus can only be reviewed by an appeal from the order. A writ of error will not lie in such a case. The papers upon both sides submitted upon this motion are so very defective that it is impossible to determine the merits involved, even if we had the power to pass upon them as we would have upon a regular appeal from the order complained of. The relator is not without remedy if the commitment by the surrogate was unauthorized and in excess of the power vested in that magistrate. Whether the surrogate had power to impose the fine of §250 and commit the relator to prison until the same should be paid may be questionable, and upon the question of power the briefs of the counsel give no light, and as we cannot decide it we do not examine it. Doubtless the court below might have disregarded the defects of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, and considered and disposed of the application of the relator for discharge upon the merits. The relator may now either appeal from the order quashing the writ, if he shall be advised that such dismissal was a legal error, or he may proceed de novo by a proper petition and a new writ of habeas corpus. The proceedings already had will not embarrass him, and his right to a discharge can be summarily decided.

As the writ of error gives this court no jurisdiction in the premises, it must be quashed, but without costs.

All concur.

Ordered accordingly

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 N.Y. 481, 1876 N.Y. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-donovan-v-conner-ny-1876.