Case Name: United States of America against John Bishop
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1800-09
Citations: 3 Yeates 37
Docket Number: 
Parties: *United States of America against John Bishop.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 3
Pages: 36–37

Head Matter:
*United States of America against John Bishop.
Bail in another state, suffering the principal, a military man, to come into this state, cannot take him out o£ the state after being tried by a court martial for a misdemeanor, until the sentence be executed. Cited in 6 Watts 404 in support of the decision that one who is in the custody of his special bail upon a bail-piece from a justice of the peace of New Jersey cannot be arrested in Pennsylvania, and taken out of the custody of his bail by authority of a capias ad respondendum.
Captain Bishop, bearing a commission in the army of the United States, was put under an arrest, and tried by a court martial, for a misdemeanor in defrauding the soldiers of their rations. Immediately after the proceedings were closed, and before the same were transmitted to the president of the United States, for his determination thereon, Conrad Crémor, the special bail of Bishop, in sundry suits in Frederick county in Virginia, offered to arrest him under the bail pieces.
Mr. Ingersoll, attorney for the district of Pennsylvania, now moved the court for a habeas corpus to bring up the body of Bishop, for their decision on the propriety of the bail’s taking him out of the hands of the military; which was awarded. But Mr. John Ewing, the counsel of Crémor being present in court, readily agreed, that the court should take order herein, without the formality of issuing the habeas corpus.
Mr. Ingersoll urged, that the laws of the United States had prescribed trials by court martial for military offences. The laws of the United States, made in pursuance of the constitution, are declared to be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state are bound thereby. Const, of U. S. art. 6. It would be highly incongruous and lead to the greatest abuses, if the sentence of a court martial could be eluded or defeated in cases of this nature, by a bail, who has suffered his principal to leave the state, where he became his security. This case is much stronger than that of Henry Banks, determined at the sittings here in February 1798. He had -been taken on two writs of capias; and his bail in the District Court of Virginia also took him in this city. The court held, that bail in another state suffering a principal to come into this state, where he was arrested, shall not be allowed to take him out of the custody of the sheriff’s officers, and remanded Banks to gaol.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Captain Bishop must be remanded to the military tribunal, until the sentence of the court martial be executed, according to the discretion of the president. After this, he should be delivered over to the bail. A contrary decision would be attended with the greatest inconveniences.
* Whereupon lieutenant Robins Chamberlayne, undertook in open court, that the commanding officer at fort *[38 Jay should surrender Bishop to his bail, after the sentence of the court martial should be complied with.