Case Name: Ex parte SHERMAN M. BOOTH Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus, and to be discharged from imprisonment
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1854-06
Citations: 3 Wis. 145
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex parte SHERMAN M. BOOTH Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus, and to be discharged from imprisonment.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 145–156

Head Matter:
Ex parte SHERMAN M. BOOTH Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus, and to be discharged from imprisonment.
When one court has obtained jurisdiction of a case, no other court of concurrent jurisdiction will interfere therewith; and when the jurisdiction of a court is exclusive, no other court will take jurisdiction at all, to interfere with, or interrupt its proceedings preliminarily.
The discharge of the prisoner brought up on Habeas Corpus, for arrest and detention, by virtue of a warrant charging him with a crime or offence, is no bar to an indictment subsequently found against him for the same crime or offence.
One court, is not authorized to inquire preliminarily into the jurisdiction of another, so as to wrest the party or suhj vet matter of a cause fi o.n its cognizance, but will leave such court to determine in the fust instance the various questions which may arise in the course of the proceedings, that of ita own jurisdiction among tlie number.
Courts of the Cnited States arc presumed to be competent to hoar an.! determine upon the matter of their own jurisdiction, and although other courts are not in all caws bound by such deci ion, j'et no court is authorized to take the matter out oí another whoso process has first attached, and assume the right of adjudication bo&ro the lormer has liad an opportunity to determine the matter for itself.
This was an. application made on tlie 21st day of ■ July*-1854, to tlie Supreme Court in term time for a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner sets forth that he is restrained of his liberty, and imprisoned in the county jail of Milwaukee county ¡by S. V. K. Ableman, United States ■marshal ; rad that he is not committed or detained "by virtue • >“ my process, judgment or decree specified in the ..•■mnd section of chapter 124 of the Ilev. Slat of this State. But the cause or pre-tence of such imprisonment, to the best of his knowledge and belief, fc a warrant from Andrew G-. Miller judge of the District Court of the United States, a copy of which warrant is annexed. And further, that the said indictment mentioned in said warrant is grounded upon a pretended violation of tlie fugitive slave act of 1850, which act lie represents is unconstitutional and void, and therefore Ms imprisonment is illegal and unconstitutional. Wherefore he prays, that a writ of Habeas Corpus may be issued by this court, directed to the said marshal and the sheriff of the county of Milwaukee, in whose custody the said S. M. Booth is now in confinement; and that they may be required, one or both, to have the said Booth before the Supreme Court, to abide such order, &e.
(Copy of warrant referred to in petition above:)
The Uhited States oe America, ) District of Wisconsin. $
The President of the United States .of America to the Marshal of the Disindct of Wisconsin, Greeting:
You are hereby commanded to take Sherman M„ Booth, if to be found in your District, and him safely keep so that you have his body before the District Court of the United States of America for the District of Wisconsin aforesaid forthwith, then and there to answer unto an indictment pending in said Court against him for aiding and abetting and assisting the escape of Joshua G-lover from the custody of Charles-C. Cotton, a deputy Marshal, which shall then and there be made to appear; and of this writ make due return.
Witness the Hon. Andrew G. Miller, Judge of the said District Court of the United States at Madison, •in the said District of Wisconsin, this eleventh day of July, 1854. B. K. Miller, Cilerk.
J. R. Sharrstein, U. S. AtSy*
James H. Fame, for the petitioner.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Whitok, C. J.
We think that this application must he denied. The petitioner states in Ms petition for the writ, that he is imprisoned in the common jail of the county of Milwaukee; and that the cause or pretence of his commitment to the said jail, according to the best of his knowledge and belief, is a warrant from Andrew C. Miller, judge of the District Court of the United States, for the district of Wisconsin; a copy of which warrants annexed to the petition. The petitioner states further, that the indictment mentioned in the said warrant is founded upon a pretended violation of -the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which he represents as unconstitutional and void. The warrant annexed to the petition commands the marshal of the district to take the petitioner and him safely keep so that he should have his body before the District Court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin, forthwith to answer to an indictment pending in said ¡court against him, for aiding and abetting and assisting the escape of Joshua Clover from the custody of Charles 0. Cotton, a deputy marshal. The warrant is tested in the name of the judge of the District Court of the United States, for the district of Wisconsin; is sealed with the seal of that court, and signed by its clerk. In the case of Ableman vs. the State of Wisconsin, ex rel Booth, decided at the present term of the Court, we held that the issuing of a writ of Habeas Corpus by a State magistrate authorized to issue the writ, to bring before him a person who had been committed by a commissioner of the United States, for refusing to enter into a recognizance with sureties for his appearance before the District Court of the United States to answer for an alleged offence, and the discharge of the prisoner ¡?0 cuiiimiitCí!, did not interioro with the jurisdiction of that court. But we said distinctly, that when a court had obtained jurisdiction of a case, no COurt of concurrent jurisdiction would interfere, and that when the jurisdiction of a court was exclusive, no other court could take jurisdiction at all. "We supposed this to he a familiar principle, which would he denied by no one.
We are still of this opinion, and if the present application for the writ showed that the petitioner was in confinement for refusing to recognize with sureties for his appearance before the District Court of the United States for this district, in obedience to the order of a commissioner, or other inferior magistrate, wo should not hesitate, to irsas the writ. But iho facts set forth in the petition for the wrir, show that the petitioner is in co'/JÍhiouK-nt by force of a warrant issued by the court, and that the objector the imp teomne-ut is, to compel him to answer an indictment now pending againot him therein. These facts show that the .District Court of the United States has obtained jurisdiction of the cajo, and S is apparent that the indictment ponding against the petitioner is for an of-fence of which the courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction. We do not'see therefore how we can, consistently with the principles of our termer decision, interfere. It is true, that we are not asked to take the ease from the District Court of the United Spates, and try the petitioner for the oífence with which he is charged, but we are asked to remove him from the custody of that court and to discharge him, if, in our opinion, hie imprisonment is illegal. In other words, we are called upon to do an act which would prevent the court of the United States from proceed ing to try and determine a case now pending before it, and of which it has exclusive jurisdiction ; for, without the custody of its prisoner, that court can not proceed to a trial of him for the alleged offence. But it is said by the petitioner, that the act of Congress, for violating which he ia indicted, is void, for the reason, that it is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and that consequently the petition shows that no offence has been committed by the petitioner. And it is farther claimed by him, that the District Court of the United States can not obtain jurisdiction of a criminal proceeding when the facts show that no offence has been committed. In other words, that no court can have jurisdiction to try a person for an alleged violation of a void statute Hence the petitioner concludes, that by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus and discharging him from custody, we should not disturb the jurisdiction of the District Court, for the very obvious reason that it never acquired jurisdiction. But it is to be remembered that that court, having the case pending before it, is of ne cessity compelled to decide every question which the case involves — that of its own jurisdiction included. It must therefore retain the case in order to decide that, as well as every other question that may arise No State court can therefore interfere.
The application must be denied.