Samuel Freeman Miller

Name: Wales v. Whitney — Opinion of the Court
Author: Samuel Freeman Miller

Summary

“Wales v. Whitney — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Samuel Freeman Miller. It explores elements such as writ, restraint and custody.

Quotes from Wales v. Whitney — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Freeman Miller)

Samuel Freeman Miller, Wales v. Whitney — Opinion of the Court

“ But neither the supreme court of the district nor this court has any appellate jurisdiction over the naval court-martial, nor over offenses which such a court has power to try. Neither of these courts is authorized to interfere with it in the performance of its duty, by way of a writ of prohibition or any order of that nature. The civil courts can relieve a person from imprisonment under order of such court only by writ of habeas corpus, and then only when it is made apparent that it proceeds without jurisdiction. If there is no restraint there is no right in the civil court to interfere. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Wales v. Whitney — Opinion of the Court

“ On the other hand, there is an obvious motive on the part of the petitioner for construing this order as making him a prisoner in the custody of the secretary. That motive is to have himself brought before a civil court, which, on inquiry into the cause of his imprisonment, may decide that the offense with which the secretary charges him is not of a millitary character, is not one of which a naval court-martial can entertain jurisdiction, and, releasing him from the restraint of the order of arrest, it would incidentally release him from the power of that court. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Wales v. Whitney — Opinion of the Court

“ And though it is said that a file of marines or some proper officer could have been sent to arrest, and bring him back, this could only be done by another order of the secretary, and would be another arrest, and a real imprisonment under another and distinct order. Here would be a real restraint of liberty, quite different from the first. The fear of this latter proceeding, which may or may not keep Dr. Wales within the limits of the city, is a moral restraint which concerns his own convenience, and in regard to which he exercises his own will. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Wales v. Whitney — Opinion of the Court

“ Wives restrained by husbands, children withheld from the proper parent or guardian, persons held under arbitrary custody by private individuals, as in a mad-house, as well as those under military control, may all become proper subjects of relief by the writ of habeas corpus. Obviously, the extent and character of the restraint which justfies the writ, must vary according to the nature of the control which is asserted over the party in whose behalf the writ is prayed. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Wales v. Whitney — Opinion of the Court

“ In case of a person who is going at large, with no one controlling or watching him, or detaining him, his body cannot be produced by the person to whom the writ is directed, unless by consent of the alleged prisoner, or by his capture and forcible traduction into the presence of the court. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Wales v. Whitney — Opinion of the Court

“ Justice YEATES very pertinently inquires, 'Would not a habeas corpus directed to the bail of a supposed offender be perfectly novel?' And SMITH, J., said that the inclination of his mind was that habeas corpus could not lie to the bail. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Wales v. Whitney — Opinion of the Court

“ The officer has the authority to arrest, and the power to enforce it. If the party named in the writ resists or attempts to resist, the officer can summon by-standers to his assistance, and may himself use personal violence. Here the force is imminent and the party is in presence of it. It is physical power which controls him, though not called into demonstrative action. It is said in argument that such is the power exercised over the appellant under the order of the secretary of the navy. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Wales v. Whitney — Opinion of the Court

“ It is unnecessary to say more of these charges at present, than that they relate to derelictions of duty on the part of the appellant while he was surgeon general of the navy, and as such had charge of the bureau of medicine and surgery in the navy department, which office he held from August 20, 1879, to January 26, 1884. ”

Samuel Freeman Miller

Summary

Quotes from Wales v. Whitney — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Freeman Miller)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature