Case Name: COOLEY et al. v. MORGAN, Warden
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1915-03-08
Citations: 221 F. 252
Docket Number: No. 4285
Parties: COOLEY et al. v. MORGAN, Warden.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 221
Pages: 252–253

Head Matter:
COOLEY et al. v. MORGAN, Warden.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
March 8, 1915.)
No. 4285.
1. Habeas Corpus <§=>45—Jurisdiction—United States Courts.
On habeas corpus by persons confined in the penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., under a judgment of conviction affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the decision of that court cannot be reviewed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
[Ed. Note.—For other .cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 38-45; Dec. Dig. <§=>45.
Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts of Appeals in general, see notes to Lau Ow BeW' v. United States, 1 C. C. A. 6; United States Freehold Land & Emigration Co. v. Gallegos, 32 C. C. A. 475.]
2. Habeas Corpus <§=4—Grounds—Errors Reviewable on Writ op Error.
The writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a writ of error to review matters that could have been presented on such a writ.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. § 4; Dec. Dig. <§=>4.]
'Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas; John C. Pollock, Judge.
Petition by Phillip A. Cooley and others for a writ of habeas corpus directed to Thomas W. Morgan, Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan. From a judgment denying the petition, the petitioners appeal.
Affirmed.
Turner W. Bell, of Leavenworth, Kan., for appellants.
L. S. Harvey, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Kan. (Fred Robertson, U. S. Atty., and Francis M. Brady, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before ADAMS and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and AMIDON, District Judge.
other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes

Opinion:
GARLAND, Circuit Judge.
[1, 2] Appellants have appealed from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denying their petition for a writ of habeas corpus. They were among the persons sentenced by the United States District Court for the District of Indiana in the case of United States v. Frank M. Ryan et al., and are now serving their sentences at the United States penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan. They were indicted, tried, and convicted of violating sections 37 and 232-235 of the Criminal Code (Act March 4, 1909, c. 321, 35 Stat. 1096, 1134, 1135 [Comp. St. 1913, § 10201, 10402-10405]). They, with other defendants, sued out a writ of error from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and that court affirmed the judgment of conviction. 216 Fed. 23, 132 C. C. A. 257. There is no question presented on the present appeal that could not have been presented on the writ of error, and many of them were so presented and decided adversely to appellants.
The judgment below must be affirmed. We have no authority to review the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Cir cuit, neither have we any authority to permit the writ of habeas corpus to be used as a writ of error. United States v. Pridgeon, 153 U. S. 48, 14 Sup. Ct. 746, 38 L. Ed. 631; In re Swan, 150 U. S. 637, 14 Sup. Ct. 225, 37 L. Ed. 1207; Ex parte Tyler, 149 U. S. 164, 13 Sup. Ct. 785, 37 L. Ed. 689; Ex parte Frederich, 149 U. S. 70, 13 Sup. Ct. 793, 37 L. Ed. 653; Ex parte Coy, 127 U. S. 731, 8 Sup. Ct. 1263, 32 L. Ed. 274; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 4 Sup. Ct. 152, 28 L. Ed. 274; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 25 L. Ed. 717; In re Nevitt, 117 Fed. 448, 54 C. C. A. 622; Deming v. McClaughry, 113 Fed. 639, 51 C. C. A. 349; In re Reese, 107 Fed. 942, 47 C. C. A. 87; Rose v. Roberts, 99 Fed. 948, 40 C. C. A. 199; Ex parte Buskirk, 72 Fed. 14, 18 C. C. A. 410; In re Johnson (C. C.) 46 Fed. 477; In re Davison (C. C.) 21 Fed. 618; Whitney v. Dick, 202 U. S. 132, 26 Sup. Ct. 584, 50 L. Ed. 963; Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80, 6 Sup. Ct. 291, 29 L. Ed. 544, and Wales v. Whitney, 114 U. S. 564, 5 Sup. Ct. 1050, 29 L. Ed. 277.