Case ID: mo_270/html/0696-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM: GRAVES, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte CHARLES L. HOLMAN, Petitioner.
    In Banc,
    June 1, 1917.
    HABEAS CORPUS. The opinion of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, quashing a writ of habeas corpus issued on behalf of petitioner, is adopted as the opinion of the Supreme Court, and the subsequent writ of habeas corpus issued by the Supreme Court in the same case is likewise quashed.
    Habeas Corpus.
    Writ quashed,
    I. H. Lionberger for petitioner.
    
      Charles H. Daues for respondent.
   PER CURIAM:

— The opinion of the Court of Appeals! when the same case was in that court, is adopted as the opinion of this court in this case, and the writ is quashed, and the petitioner remanded to the custody of the officer.

All concur; Graves, G. J.,.in a separate opinion, in which Faris, J., concurs; Bond, J., concurs in result only of the Court of Appeals opinion:

GRAVES, C. J.

(Concurring). — By agreement this court determined to express its views upon the opinion of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, when Holman asked for writ of habeas corpus there. Upon this theory I concur in the result of the opinion of the St. Louis Court of Appeals. I do not concur in its adoption of the views of this court in City of St. Louis v. United Railways, 263 Mo. 387. To my mind the instant case does not necessarily require a determination of the mooted questions involved in the United Railways case, supra. But even if it did, there are other questions which would authorize the proposed investigation by the committee, all of which were fully covered in the resolution, and other proceedings of the legislative body and its committee. I therefore concur in the result of the opinion of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, leaving the questions involved in United Railways case open, so fár as I am concerned, until the same are squarely passed upon by the United States Supreme Court, which to this date has never been done.

Faris, J., concurs in these views.