Case Name: Ex parte JACOBI
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1900-08-20
Citations: 104 F. 681
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex parte JACOBI.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 104
Pages: 681–682

Head Matter:
Ex parte JACOBI.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana.
August 20, 1900.)
1. Aprear — Habeas Corpus — Decision m Chambers.
The decision of a circuit judge in chambers in a habeas corpus proceeding is not a final decision of a court from which an appeal will lie.
8. Circuit Court op Appears — Jurisdiction—Constitutional Questions.
An appeal from the decision of a circuit court on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, based on tbe ground that the applicant is detained in custody in violation of the constitution of the United States, does not lie to the circuit court of appéals, but must be taken to the supreme court.
On Application for Appeal.
B. O. Brickell, A. A. Wiley, and Julius Sternfeld, for petitioner.
Bay Bushton, for respondent.

Opinion:
SHELBY, Circuit Judge.
1. This is an application for an appeal to the United States circuit court of appeals from the decision of a circuit judge at chambers in a habeas corpus case. The decision of a circuit judge at chambers in such case is not the final decision of a court. No appeal lies in such case. Lambert v. Barrett, 157 U. S. 697, 15 Sup. Ct. 722, 39 L. Ed. 865; Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U. S. 87, 7 Sup. Ct. 825, 30 L. Ed. 882; Ex parte Lennon, 150 U. S. 393, 14 Sup. Ct. 123, 37 L. Ed. 1120; Act March 3, 1891; Rev. St. § 763, 764.
2. The traverse of the sheriff's return alleges that Sanford Jacobi is detained in custody in violation of the constitution of the United States. The case, therefore, is one involving "the construction or application of the constitution of the. United States." This is also shown by the assignment of errors. In such case, if decided by the circuit court, the appeal could only be taken to the supreme court. It could not be properly taken to the court of appeals. Act March 3, 1891, § 5, 6; Pennsylvania Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. City of Austin, 168 U. S. 685, 18 Sup. Ct. 223, 42 L. Ed. 626; City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co.. 172 U. S. 1, 19 Sup. Ct. 77, 43 L. Ed. 341; Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, 17 Sup. Ct. 265, 41 L. Ed. 632; Holder v. Aultman, Miller & Co., 169 U. S. 88, 18 Sup. Ct. 269, 42 L. Ed. 669; Horner v. U. S., 143 U. S. 570, 12 Sup. Ct. 522, 36 L. Ed. 266; Railroad Co. v. Adams, 35 C. C. A. 635, 93 Fed. 852; City of Macon v. Georgia Packing Co., 9 C. C. A. 262, 60 Fed. 781; and City of Dawson v. Columbia Ave. Saving Fund, Safe Deposit, Title & Trust Co., 42 C. C. A. 258, 102 Fed. 200, and cases cited in last case. The application for appeal is denied.