Court Opinion

ID: 9653076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:38:18.645466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:56.268194
License: Public Domain

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
To what has been said I would like to add this: Any comity due to the court of the Eastern District because of the habeas corpus proceeding there pending was observed, in that the judge of the Southern District made his habeas corpus returnable at the very time and place that that in the Eastern District was set for hearing, and it was passed on by the judge of the Eastern District who had authority to sit in both districts. In taking up first the later case the court necessarily waived any priority of possession of Voigt’s person which the former proceeding might have claimed. Voigt himself had no right to have comity observed. Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U. S. 77, 25 S. Ct. 573, 49 L. Ed. 950; Peekham v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 483, 30 S. Ct. 255, 54 L. Ed. 579.