Supreme Court of the United States, 1886

Ex Parte Royall

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 15, 1886 · Harlan

117 U.S. 254; 6 S. Ct. 742; 29 L. Ed. 872; 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1833 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. William L. Boyall in person and Mr. Daniel H. Chamberlain for the ’ petitioner. Mr, William B. Ilornblower was with them on the brief.

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Wallace R. Fulwood v. William Stone (D.C. Cir. 1967)
McGuire v. Blubaum (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1974)
Bens v. United States (2d Cir. 1920)
Stevens v. McClaughry (8th Cir. 1913)
Ex parte Roach (District Court, N.D. Iowa 1908)
Bryant v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ETC. (District Court, S.D. New York 1982)
Hutchinson v. Casey (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1981)
Ex parte Craig (2d Cir. 1921)
Ex Parte Hudgings (Supreme Court of the United States 1919)
In re United Wireless Telegraph Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1912)
Ex parte Collins (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1906)
Riggins v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1905)
National Bank of America v. Home Security Co. (Kan. 1902)
United States ex rel. Scott v. McAleese (3d Cir. 1899)
In re Chapman (Supreme Court of the United States 1895)
New York v. Eno (Supreme Court of the United States 1894)
United States ex rel. Silverman v. Fiscus (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1890)
Ex Parte Mirzan (Supreme Court of the United States 1887)

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

*255 . Me. Justice Haelan

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an original application by "W. L. Rovall, to this court, for a writ of habeas corpus, directed to N. M. Lee, sergeant of the city of Richmond, Yirginia, commanding him to produce the body of the petitioner before this court, together with the cause of his detention, that he may be discharged from' the custody of said 'officer. The writ is asked upon the ground that the statute under which he was arrested and is held in custody is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, that he is restrained of his liberty in violation of that instrument. The petition was filed here on the 1st day of-December, 1884. It states the same facts as are set out in the petition in Ex parte Royall No. 1, and Ex parte Royall No. 2, ante, 241, just determined.

The application for the writ must be denied. It is sufficient to say that if this court has power, under existing legislation, and upon habeas corpus, to discharge the petitioner, who is in custody, under the process of a State court of original jurisdiction, for trial on an indictment charging him with an offence against the laws of that State — upon which it is not necessary to express an opinion — such power ought not, for the reasons given in the other cases just decided, to be exercised in advance of his trial.

Denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.