Supreme Court of the United States, 1931

Carr v. Zaja

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 23, 1931 · Holmes

283 U.S. 52; 51 S. Ct. 360; 75 L. Ed. 836; 1931 U.S. LEXIS 126 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Claude R. Branch, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Attorney General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Dodds, Messrs. Albert E. Reitzel and B. W. Butler, Assistant Solicitors, Department of Labor, Harry S. Ridgely, and Erwin N. Griswold were on the brief, for petitioner., Mr. Erwin I. Feldman, with whom Mr. J. Edward Keating was on the brief, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Samson Eisner (Principal) and United Bonding Insurance Co. (Surety) (6th Cir. 1963)
United States v. Villamonte-Marquez (Supreme Court of the United States 1983)
Continental Can Co. v. Schuyler (District Court, District of Columbia 1970)
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Flowers (Supreme Court of the United States 1947)
Eagles v. United States Ex Rel. Samuels (Supreme Court of the United States 1946)

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

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case raises the same question as No. 92, ante, p. 48, but, as stated in No. 92, was decided the other way by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Zaja is a Dalmatian, citizen of Jugo-Slavia. He shipped as a seaman upon an Italian ship and on its arrival at San Pedro, California, deserted the ship on January 25, 1925. He was arrested on October 4, 1928, more than three years after his entry, and after a hearing was ordered to be deported on the same ground as in No. 92. He obtained a *53 writ of habeas corpus and was ordered to be discharged from custody. 37 F. (2d) 1016. The judgment must be reversed for the reasons given in No. 92. It is objected that the mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals was not stayed, but was issued to the District Court and spread upon its records and that therefore the case is finished. But that does not defeat the jurisdiction of this Court. The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 110, 113. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Behlmer, 169 U. S. 644, 648. Rule 45.

Judgment reversed.

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