United States ex rel. Gallivan v. Hill
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Walker v. United States (District Court, D. New Jersey 1957)
- United States v. Walker (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1955)
- Yodock v. United States (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1951)
- United States v. Kranz (District Court, D. New Jersey 1949)
- Stewart v. Johnston (9th Cir. 1938)
- Vigoretti v. Hill (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1936)
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
This is an appeal from, an order of Judge Johnson denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The relator was indicted for an assault on a customs officer, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment in the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg.
The ground on which the relator alleges that he was entitled to the writ of habeas corpus was that “the (District) Court was without jurisdiction to issue the commitment, because the indictment upon which it is based * * 4 fails to set forth sufficient facts to constitute the crime it purports to charge this relator with.”
This is an attempt to make the writ of habeas corpus serve as an appeal. This cannot be done. Braun v. United States (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 118; United States ex rel. Lee Fook Chew v. McNeil (C. C. A.) 69 F.(2d) 107.
It has also been uniformly held by the Supreme Court that the sufficiency of an indictment cannot be reviewed in habeas corpus proceedings. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 7 L. Ed. 650; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 4 S. Ct. 152, 28 L. Ed. 274; Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18, 23 L. Ed. 787; In re Coy, 127 U. S. 731, 8 S. Ct. 1263, 32 L. Ed. 274; Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. S. 655, 15 S. Ct. 727, 39 L. Ed. 845; Howard v. Fleming, 191 U. S. 126, 24 S. Ct. 49, 48 L. Ed. 121; Dimmick v. Tompkins, 194 U. S. 540, 24 S. Ct. 780, 48 L. Ed. 1110; In re Eckart, 166 U. S. 481, 17 S. Ct. 638, 41 L. Ed. 1085; Goto v. Lane, 265 U. S. 393, 44 S. Ct. 525, 68 L. Ed. 1070; Knewel v. Egan, 268 U. S. 442, 45 S. Ct. 522, 69 L. Ed. 1036.
The order of the District Judge is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.