Case Name: UNITED STATES v. SINGER
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1925-06-18
Citations: 5 F.2d 966
Docket Number: No. 2965
Parties: UNITED STATES v. SINGER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 5
Pages: 966–966

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. SINGER.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
June 18, 1925.)
No. 2965.
Habeas corpus <S=>II3(3) — Appeal from order discharging prisoner dismissed, as unauthorized.
Appeal from order of Circuit Judge, made prior to Act Feb. 13, 1925, discharging on ha-beas corpus a prisoner confined under sentence imposed in district court will be dismissed; no statute authorizing it.
Appeal from Order of Discharge on Ha-beas Corpus Proceeding by Woolley, Circuit Judge, in the District of New Jersey.
Habeas corpus by Samuel Singer against the United States. Petitioner was discharged, and the United States appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Walter G. Winne, U. S. Atty., of Hacken-sack, N. J., and Walter H. Bacon, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., of Bridgeton, N. J.
James Mercer Davis, of Camden, N. J., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge, and THOMPSON and MORRIS, District Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order made by a Circuit Judge discharging from custody one Samuel Singer, who had been convicted and sentenced in the District Court of New Jersey. The question involved in this case is whether, when the order appealed from was made, a United States Circuit Judge had power and jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus and thereon to discharge a prisoner confined under sentence imposed in the District Court. He so did and the United States took this appeal. A motion is now made by the prisoner to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that no statute grants an appeal to this court from an order so made by a Circuit Judge. Neither the efforts of counsel nor our own have found such a statute.
The appeal is therefore dismissed, and, being without jurisdiction to consider the question involved in this appeal, we express no opinion upon it.
Such power has since been expressly conferred by Act Feb. 13, 1925, § 6 (a) 43 Stat. 940, c. 229.