Peckham v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 483 (1910)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 216 U.S. 462, click here.

Peckham v. Henkel

No. 366

Argued January 6, 7, 1910
Decided February 21, 1910
216 U.S. 483

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Syllabus

Haas v. Henkel, ante, p. 462, followed as to jurisdiction of commissioner under § 1014, Rev.Stat., in removal proceedings to remove accused who has been indicted in more than one district.

The fact that the person whose removal is sought is under bond to appear in other removal proceedings on prior indictments does not prevent the removal order’s being issued. The effect could only be to exonerate the sureties.

The rule that the jurisdiction over the person by one federal court must be respected until exhausted is one of comity only, and has a limited application in criminal cases. It will not prevent removal under § 1014, Rev.Stat., where the cases are not the same.

Even if a second removal proceeding does amount to an election by the government to abandon the first complaint, that fact does not affect the jurisdiction of the commissioner.

Disregard of comity between federal courts at the instance of the government is not an invasion of constitutional rights of the accused. It does not affect the jurisdiction of the commissioner, and even if his decision is erroneous, it cannot be attacked on habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is not writ of error.

166 F. 627 affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.