Wilson, Ex Parte

Supreme Court

Wilson, Ex Parte

10 U.S. 52, 3 L. Ed. 149, 6 Cranch 52, 1810 U.S. LEXIS 317

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 1, 1810

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 10 U.S. 52 (Wilson, Ex Parte) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson, Ex Parte, 10 U.S. 52, 3 L. Ed. 149, 6 Cranch 52, 1810 U.S. LEXIS 317 (1810).

Pincite

Opinion

10 U.S. 52

6 Cranch 52

3 L.Ed. 149

WILSON, EX PARTE.

February Term, 1810

WILSON petitioned the court for a writ of habeas corpus, and a certiorari to bring up the record of a civil cause in which judgment had been rendered against him, upon which a ca. sa. had issued, by which he was taken and was now in confinement within the prisons bounds upon a prison-bounds bond. His petition stated that the marshal had demanded of the creditor the daily allowance for the prisoner agreeably to the act of congress, concerning insolvent debtors within the district of Columbia, (Laws U. S. vol. 6 p. 301. § 15.) which the creditor had refused to pay, in consequence of which the marshal had no longer any authority to detain him.

The act of congress provides that the circuit court of the district of Columbia shall, by a general order, fix the daily allowance for the support of prisoners in execution for debt in civil suits, and that 'no person, taken in execution for debt or damages in a civil suit, shall be detained in prison therefor unless the creditor, his agent or attorney, shall, after demand thereof by the marshal, pay, or give such security as he may require, to pay, such daily allowance, and the prison fees.

The marshal refused to discharge the petitioner; and his counsel, E. J. Lee, now moved for a habeas corpus.

MARSHALL, Ch. J. after consultation with the other judges, stated that the court was not satisfied that a habeas corpus is the proper remedy, in a case of arrest under a civil process.

Habeas corpus refused.

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

10 U.S. 52

6 Cranch 52

3 L.Ed. 149

WILSON, EX PARTE.

February Term, 1810

WILSON petitioned the court for a writ of habeas corpus, and a certiorari to bring up the record of a civil cause in which judgment had been rendered against him, upon which a ca. sa. had issued, by which he was taken and was now in confinement within the prisons bounds upon a prison-bounds bond. His petition stated that the marshal had demanded of the creditor the daily allowance for the prisoner agreeably to the act of congress, concerning insolvent debtors within the district of Columbia, (Laws U. S. vol. 6 p. 301. § 15.) which the creditor had refused to pay, in consequence of which the marshal had no longer any authority to detain him.

The act of congress provides that the circuit court of the district of Columbia shall, by a general order, fix the daily allowance for the support of prisoners in execution for debt in civil suits, and that 'no person, taken in execution for debt or damages in a civil suit, shall be detained in prison therefor unless the creditor, his agent or attorney, shall, after demand thereof by the marshal, pay, or give such security as he may require, to pay, such daily allowance, and the prison fees.

The marshal refused to discharge the petitioner; and his counsel, E. J. Lee, now moved for a habeas corpus.

MARSHALL, Ch. J. after consultation with the other judges, stated that the court was not satisfied that a habeas corpus is the proper remedy, in a case of arrest under a civil process.

Habeas corpus refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 U.S. 52, 3 L. Ed. 149, 6 Cranch 52, 1810 U.S. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-ex-parte-scotus-1810.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack