Source: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/McNally_v._Hill/Opinion_of_the_Court
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 15:15:33+00:00

Document:
Originating as a writ by which the superior courts of the common law and the chancellor sought to extend their jurisdiction at the expense of inferior or rival courts, it ultimately took form and survived as the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, by which the legality of the detention of one in the custody of another could be tested judicially. See Holdsworth, History of the English Law, vol. 9, 108-125. Its use was defined and regulated by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, 31 Car. II, c. 2. This legislation and the decisions of the English courts interpreting it have been accepted by this Court as authoritative guides in defining the principles which control the use of the writ in the federal courts. See Ex parte Watkins, supra, page 202 of 3 Pet., 7 L.Ed. 650; Ex parte Yerger, supra, page 95 of 8 Wall., 19 L.Ed. 332; Ex parte Parks, supra, pages 21, 22 of 93 U.S., 23 L.Ed. 787.
^1 The Habeas Corpus Act appears from its preamble to have been especially, although not exclusively, directed at cases in which the King's subjects were detained in custody upon a criminal charge where by law they were entitled to bail. It authorized the writ to issue, directed to any sheriff or gaoler, or other person 'for any person in his or their custody.' It commanded the production of the prisoner before the judicial officer to whom the writ was to be returned and directed that such officer 'shall discharge' the 'prisoner from his imprisonment' with provision for taking bail in his discretion, 'unless it shall appear' to him that the petitioner 'is detained upon a legal process, order or warrant out of some court that hath jurisdiction of criminal matters' or upon warrant for an offense 'for which by law the prisoner is not bailable.' 31 Car. II, § II(2), § III(6)(7).
^2 The writ, in its historic form, like that now in use in the federal courts, was directed to the disposition of the custody of the prisoner. It commanded the officer to 'have the body' of him 'detained in our prison under your custody,' 'together with the day and cause of his being taken and detained,' before the judge at a specified time and place 'to do and receive all and singular those things which our said chief justice shall then and there consider of him in this behalf.' Richardson, The Attorney's Practice in the Court of Kings Bench, vol. 1, p. 369. Numerous writs, in substantially the same form, used between 5 Edw. IV and James II, are collected in Tremaine, Pleas of the Crown, 351-435. The earliest of these is reprinted in Coke's Second Institutes, 53. And see Hurd, Habeas Corpus, 232-233.
^3 Bacon, in his Abridgment, 425, declared the writ 'is the most usual remedy by which a man is restored to his liberty if he hath by law been deprived of it.' And Hale said that it was designed 'to remove or avoid the imprisonment.' Analysis of the Law, 78; see, also, Pleas of the Crown, 143. And see Coke, Second Institutes, 52, 53; Comyns, Digest of the Laws of England, 454; Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. 1, 129-137.
^5 In Morgan v. Devine, 237 U.S. 632, 637, 35 S.Ct. 712, 59 L.Ed. 1153, the writ was denied on the merits and in Ex parte Spencer, 228 U.S. 652, 33 S.Ct. 709, 57 L.Ed. 1010, petition for the writ was denied because sought to be used as a substitute for a writ of error, although in each case the petitioner had not served an admittedly valid part of his sentence. In neither case did the opinion discuss the question whether the application was premature.
^6 The Courts of Appeals in circuits other than the eighth have uniformly denied petitions for writs of habeas corpus when the prisoner was not at that time serving the part of the sentence said to be invalid. Carter v. Snook, 28 F.(2d) 609 (C.C.A.5th); Eori v. Aderhold, 53 F.(2d) 840, 841 (C.C.A.5th); De Bara v. United States, 99 F. 942 (C.C.A.6th); United States v. Carpenter, 151 F. 214, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1043, 10 Ann.Cas. 509 (C.C.A.9th); Mabry v. Beaumont, 290 F. 205, 206 (C.C.A.9th); Dodd v. Peak, 60 App.D.C. 68, 47 F.(2d) 430, 431. And to the like effect, see Woodward v. Bridges, 144 F. 156 (D.C.); Ex parte Davis, 112 F. 139 (C.C.). This was the view of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Connella v. Haskell, 158 F. 285, 289. But in O'Brien v. McClaughry (C.C.A.) 209 F. 816, 820, 821, that court, in order that the prisoner might apply for parole for the valid part of his sentence, remanded the prisoner with directions to the District Court to discharge the prisoner from custody with respect to the invalid sentence, but to remand him to custody upon the valid sentence. This procedure was followed by the same court in Cahill v. Biddle (C.C.A.) 13 F.(2d) 827, 828, 829. But see Morgan v. Sylvester (C.C.A.) 231 F. 886, 887; Hostetter v. United States (C.C.A.) 16 F.(2d) 921, 923, and Schultz v. Biddle, 19 F.(2d) 478, 480, in the same court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.