SECTION 60.-HABEAS CORPUS Ex parte WATKINS. (Supreme Court of the United States, 1830. 3 Pet. 193, 7 L. Ed. 650.) MARSHALL, C. J.88 This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to bring the body of Tobias Watkins before this court, for the purpose of inquiring into the legality of his confinement in jail. The petition states that he is detained in prison, by virtue of a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia, rendered in a criminal prosecution carried on against him in that court. A copy of the indictment and judgment is annexed to the petition, and the motion is founded on the allegation that the indictment charges no offense for which the prisoner was punishable in that court, or of which that court could take cognizance, and consequently that the proceedings are coram non judice, and totally void. This application is made to a court which has no jurisdiction in criminal cases (United States v. More, 3 Cranch, 169, 2 L. Ed. 397), which could not revise this judgment, could not reverse or affirm it, were the record brought up directly by writ of error. The power, however, to award writs of habeas corpus, is conferred expressly on this court by the fourteenth section of the judiciary act, and has been repeatedly exercised. No doubt exists respecting the power; the question is whether this be a case in which it ought to be exercised. The cause of imprisonment is shown as fully by the petitioner as it could appear on the return of the writ; consequently, the writ ought not to be awarded, if the court is satisfied that the prisoner would be remanded to prison. No law of the United States prescribes the cases in which this great writ shall be issued, nor the power of the court over the party brought up by it. The term is used in the Constitution, as one which was well understood; and the judiciary act authorizes this court, and all the courts of the United States, and the judges thereof, to issue the writ "for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of commitment." This general reference to a power which we are required to exercise, without any precise definition of that power, imposes on us the necessity of making some inquiries into its use, according to that law which is in a considerable degree incorporated into our own. The writ of habeas corpus is a high prerogative writ, known to the common law, the great object of which is the liberation of those 88 Only a portion of the opinion of Marshall, C. J., is printed. who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause. It is in the nature of a writ of error, to examine the legality of the commitment. The English, judges, being originally under the influence of the crown, neglected to issue this writ, where the government entertained suspicions which could not be sustained by evidence; and the writ, when issued, was sometimes disregarded or evaded, and great individual oppression was suffered, in consequence of delays in bringing prisoners to trial. To remedy this evil, the celebrated habeas corpus act of 31 Car. II was enacted, for the purpose of securing the benefits for which the writ was given. This statute may be referred to as describing the cases in which relief is, in England, afforded by this writ to a person detained in custody. It enforces the common law. This statute excepts, from those who are entitled to its benefit, persons committed for felony or treason, plainly expressed in the warrant, as well as persons convicted or in execution. The exception of persons convicted applies particularly to the application now under consideration. The petitioner is detained in prison by virtue of the judgment of a court, which court possesses general and final jurisdiction in criminal cases. Can this judgment be re-examined upon a writ of habeas corpus? This writ is, as has been said, in the nature of a writ of error, which brings up the body of the prisoner, with the cause of commitment. The court can undoubtedly inquire into the sufficiency of that cause; but if it be the judgment of a court of competent jursdiction, especially a judgment withdrawn by law from the revision of this court, is not that judgment in itself sufficient cause? Can the court, upon this writ, look beyond the judgment, and re-examine the charges on which it was rendered? A judgment, in its nature, concludes the subject on which it is rendered, and pronounces the law of the case. The judgment of a court of record, whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court, as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it. * * * 89 So The following cases in this collection are cases of habeas corpus: In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200, 8 Sup. Ct. 482, 31 L. Ed. 402 (1888); Langenberg v. Decker, 131 Ind. 471. 31 N. E. 190, 16 L. R. A. 108 (1892); Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 657, 12 Sup. Ct. 336, 35 L. Ed. 1146 (1892); Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U. S. 1, 24 Sup. Ct. 171, 48 L. Ed. 317 (1903); United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161, 24 Sup. Ct. 621, 48 L. Ed. 917 (1904); United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 25 Sup. Ct. 644, 49 L. Ed. 1040 (1905); Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U. S. 8, 28 Sup. Ct. 201, 52 L. Ed. 369 (1908). SECTION 61.-PROHIBITION The principal function of the writ of prohibition is to restrain inferior courts from proceeding in matters beyond their jurisdiction. Its use to control administrative action is exceptional and infrequent. See, for example, State ex rel. Ellis v. Elkin, 130 Mo. 90, 30 S. W. 333, 31 S. W. 1037 (1895); Speed v. Common Council, 98 Mich. 360, 57 N. W. 406, 22 L. R. A. 842, 39 Am. St. Rep. 555 (1894); People v. Supervisors of Queens County, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 195, 200 (1841); People ex rel. Pressmeyer v. Board of Commissioners of Police, 59 N. Y. 92 (1874). As to use of writ in South Carolina, see State ex rel. Carter v. Burger, 1 McMul. (S. C.) 418 (1841), and State v. County Treasurer, 4 S. C. 520, 534 (1873). Writ held not to lie against an administrative body. La Croix v. County Commissioners of Fairfield County, 50 Conn. 321, 324, 47 Am. Rep. 648 (1882). SECTION 62.-JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN ALLOWANCE OF EXTRAORDIARY LEGAL REMEDIES-MANDAMUS PEOPLE ex rel. GAS LIGHT CO. v. COMMON COUNCIL OF SYRACUSE. (Court of Appeals of New York, 1879. 78 N. Y. 56.) CHURCH, C. J.90 This is an appeal from a judgment denying a mandamus to compel the common council of the city of Syracuse to proceed to the assessment and collection of a tax sufficient to pay the relator and another property owner the appraised value of lands proposed to be taken for street purposes. The commissioners appointed to appraise the value of the lands filed their report December 11, 1871, and on October 13, 1873, the common council passed a resolution rescinding the original resolution to widen the street and condemn lands therefor, and declared that all proceedings taken pursuant thereto were abandoned and discontinued. The application for a mandamus was made June 29, 1875. The two material questions presented are: First. Whether the common council had the legal right as against the property owners to discontinue the proceedings. Second. If this should be determined in the negative, whether the lapse of time and other circumstances justified the judgment refusing a mandamus. [The discus 90 Only a portion of the opinion of Church, C. J., is printed. sion of the first question is omitted. The court concluded that the rescinding resolution was void.] As to the question whether the court below was justified in refusing a mandamus on account of the lapse of time which intervened, there is more embarrassment. The writ of mandamus is called a prerogative writ. It originated from a necessity to furnish a remedy. to compel the performance of a specific duty, in cases where the ordinary forms of legal procedure furnished no adequate remedy, and issued by the exercise of the sovereign power of the king, who originally sat in the King's Bench in person. 1 Bl. Com. 239. As this exercise of power could not be controlled, the issuing of the writ was necessarily discretionary, and [it] was liable to be issued or refused as the king might see fit. When the power became vested in the courts of England, and when transmitted to our own courts, it has been and is still regarded as discretionary, as distinguished from a writ of right. But although in this sense discretionary in the court to grant or refuse this remedy, yet it is not an absolute and arbitrary discretion, but the power is to be exercised, and may be regulated and controlled by certain rules of law dictated by experience, and incorporated into our system of judicature. Fish v. Weatherwax, 2 Johns. Cas. 215, note, and cases cited. The distinction between an absolute discretion, and that which is governed by legal rules, is well recognized. The former is not reviewable; the latter is. Howell v. Mills, 53 N. Y. 322. This case belongs to the latter class. There must be a clear legal right. We have seen that such right existed. There must be no other adequate remedy. It is not disputed that such was the fact. It is insisted that the relator has lost his right by delay. Some de-. lay was necessary. The commissioners were to be put in motion, local assessments, and perhaps general assessments, were to be made, perfected, and collected, and this would occupy an indefinite period of time. How long does not appear. The case seems to have been tried upon the pleadings, and it was alleged that the relator had often requested the common council to make the assessment. It nowhere appears what answer was made to these applications, whether the council refused, or promised performance, so that up to the period of the resolution of abandonment there is nothing in the case to show a want of vigilance on the part of the relator or any indisposition on the part of the common council to perform their duty. But after that it is argued that from the lapse of time before applying for the writ, about twenty months, it may be inferred that the relator acquiesced in the abandonment, and it is laid down as a rule that a party must not sleep upon his rights. There would be some force in this position if it appeared that the relator knew of this action of the common council; but this fact is neither alleged, nor proved. I have been unable to find any authority for the position that a mere delay of this character has been fatal to the right of a party to this remedy, when a clear legal and substantial right has been shown. * * When the relator has for an unreasonable time slept upon his rights, the court may in the exercise of a sound discretion refuse the writ. In determining what will constitute such unreasonable delay, regard should be had to circumstances which justify the delay, to the nature of the case and the relief demanded, and to the question whether the rights of the defendant or of other persons have been prejudiced by such delay. Chinn v. Trustees, 32 Ohio St. 236. The difficulty with the case on the part of the defendant is that no facts were shown which would justify a refusal of the writ, except a delay which may in part at least have been caused by the defendant. There is nothing to show but that the plaintiff supposed that the proceedings were progressing, or that he thought an abandonment was contemplated, nor any change of circumstances shown, rendering the consummation of the improvement impracticable or specially injurious to the defendant or individuals. That question seems not to have been litigated on the trial. The circumstances should be shown which according to established rules justify a refusal of the writ. In King v. Canal Co., 1 M. & C. 35, there was delay, and another remedy. In King v. Commissioners, 20 Eng. Com. Law, 525, there was delay, and the issuing of the writ would have been prejudicial to the intervening private rights of others, and in all the cases circumstances appeared which according to settled rules of public policy warranted a refusal of the writ. 2 Crary's Prac. 51, 52, and cases cited: 5 Wait's Prac. 552. When the relator shows a fixed legal right to compensation for lands condemned for public purposes, a mere delay of the character appearing in this case is not sufficient to deprive him of the right. People v. Board of Supervisors, 12 Barb. 446. The nature of the case is such that circumstances may exist rendering it improper to grant the writ, but no such facts appeared. A new trial may develop them. We do not deem it necessary to notice the other points. As the case appeared, we think it was error to refuse the writ. The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide event. All concur, except ANDREWS, J., absent. Judgment reversed.o1 91 See, also, People ex rel. Stettauer v. Olsen, 215 Ill. 620, 74 N. E. 785 (1905). |