Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Jas. F. Matthews, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the petition. Upon hearing of petition for habeas corpus to inquire into detention of petitioner as a fugitive from justice, under extradition warrant issued for interstate extradition, evidence that requisition proceedings, or prosecution in demanding state were instigated or inspired by some ulterior motive, or purpose other than prosecution of crime, is not admissible. People ex rel. Carr v. Murray, 357 Ill. 326, 192 N.E. 198, 94 A.L.R. 1487; Gaskins v. Davis, 115 N.C. 85, 20 S.E. 188, 25 L.R.A. 813, 44 Am.St. Rep. 439; 94 A.L.R. 1496, 1497, note; 22 Am.Jur. 254, § 15. W. W. Malone and W. W. Malone, Jr., both of Athens, opposed. The court may inquire into the question of ulterior motive in extradition proceedings, and act accordingly. State of Tennessee v. Hamilton, 28 Ala. App. 587, 190 So. 306; Barriere v. State, 142 Ala. 72, 39 So. 55. Extradition is not proper to aid in the collection of a debt. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 68.
Judges
  • LIVINGSTON, Justice.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Jas. F. Matthews, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the petition. Upon hearing of petition for habeas corpus to inquire into detention of petitioner as a fugitive from justice, under extradition warrant issued for interstate extradition, evidence that requisition proceedings, or prosecution in demanding state were instigated or inspired by some ulterior motive, or purpose other than prosecution of crime, is not admissible. People ex rel. Carr v. Murray, 357 Ill. 326, 192 N.E. 198, 94 A.L.R. 1487; Gaskins v. Davis, 115 N.C. 85, 20 S.E. 188, 25 L.R.A. 813, 44 Am.St. Rep. 439; 94 A.L.R. 1496, 1497, note; 22 Am.Jur. 254, § 15. W. W. Malone and W. W. Malone, Jr., both of Athens, opposed. The court may inquire into the question of ulterior motive in extradition proceedings, and act accordingly. State of Tennessee v. Hamilton, 28 Ala. App. 587, 190 So. 306; Barriere v. State, 142 Ala. 72, 39 So. 55. Extradition is not proper to aid in the collection of a debt. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 68.
Judges
  • LIVINGSTON, Justice.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Ex parte STATE. HOBBS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE ex rel. STATE OF ALABAMA.

LIVINGSTON, Justice.

While we may not agree with all that is said by the Court of Appeals in the instant case, there is a clear finding by that court that the extradition proceedings were instituted to collect the balance due on a debt due by petitioner, in violation of section 68, Title 15, Code of Alabama of 1940. The finding is the result of a proper inquiry under that section of the Code, and is not reviewable here. See notes 94 A.L.R. 1499. The petition for certiorari is therefore denied.

Writ denied.

GARDNER, C. J., BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

EX PARTE STATE
(Jun 11, 1942)