Court Opinion

ID: 9727326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:30:56.557065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:36.296443
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearns:
I concur in the opinion of the Court. Our decision in Commonwealth ex rel. Henderson v. Baldi, 372 Pa. 463, 93 A. 2d 458 (1953), which the majority opinion cites Avith- approAral, Avas the unanimous opinion of the five mémbérs of-the Court who heard argument of the appeal (Chief Justice Dreav having resigned and *513Justice Musmanno being absent). The decision in the Henderson case is in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U. S. 86 (1952). Three months after our decision in the Henderson case, we unanimously reversed a lower court’s grant of a writ of habeas corpus to a fugitive from imprisonment by another state who alleged that, if returned to the demanding state, his life tvould be in danger: see Commonwealth ex rel. Hatton v. Dye, 373 Pa. 502, 96 A. 2d 127. The opinion in the Hatton case to which six members of this Court, as presently constituted, subscribed without dissent (Justice Bell alone being absent), cited and quoted with approval from the Henderson case. And, on the same day, in Commonwealth ex rel. Huey v. Dye, 373 Pa. 508, 96 A. 2d 129, wre affirmed the refusal of a writ of habeas corpus to a fugitive whose similar allegation was that, if returned to the demanding state, his life would be in danger. The decision in the Huey case was likewise on the unanimous opinion of the same six members of the Court who agreed that “As to relator’s contention that his life will be in danger if he is returned to the demanding state, a similar contention was considered and rejected by this Court in the case of Commonwealth ex rel. Hatton v. Dye, [supra].”