Ex Parte Le Bur
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ex parte Corretjer (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1936)
- Ex parte Corretjer (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1936)
- Ex parte State (Ala. 1883)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The prisoner is detained in custody by the authorities of the Government of the United States, by virtue of the judgment rendered by the United States Court in Oregon, and it is not claimed that the term of his imprisonment has expired. The circumstance that he is imprisoned at the State Prison and in the keeping of its warden is of no import in this respect, for these are but the agencies and means of his confinement adopted by the United States by the consent of the State.
The petitioner being a prisoner held by the authorities of the Government of the United States, by virtue of the judgment of a Federal Court of exclusive jurisdiction in the case, it is my duty under the statutes of the State to remand him. (Penal Code, Sec. 1,486.)
It is there provided that if the time during which a party may be legally detained in custody has not expired, he must be remanded if he appear to be detained in custody “ by virtue of process issued by any Court or Judge of the United States in a case where such Court or Judge has exclusive jurisdiction.
In Ableman v. Booth (21 How. U. S. 523), the question of the power of the State courts to deal with persons detained as the petitioner is, was discussed by- Mr. Chief Justice
The petitioner must be remanded, and it is so ordered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.