Citizenship.- Children, even of aliens, born in a country while parents are resident there under protection of the government, and owing temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth at common law, p. 164, per Story, J., dissenting. Cited approvingly, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 660, 42 L. 895, 18 S. Ct. 461, holding Chinese child born in United States of alien parents during permanent residence here is citizen. Real property.- Party having mere right of entry upon lands of which he has been disseized could not, at common law, grant or assign the same, p. 176, per Story, J., dissenting. Approved in Campbell v. Point St. Works, 12 R. I. 453, holding sheriff's sale of A.'s interest in property in adverse possession of B. is void. Miscellaneous.- Baring v. Erdman, 2 Fed. Cas. 788, and Magill v. Brown, 16 Fed. Cas. 416, holding statutes in favor of public institutions and charities are to be liberally construed; Tinker v. Van Dyke, 1 Flip. 527, F. C. 14,058, erroneous. Judgment of competent court is conclusive and not reviewable by habeas PAGE. 37 38 38 ..... 39 39 89 corpus........ 41 41 Judgment of Circuit Court for District of Columbia is of this order, and an answer to habeas corpus proceedings 43 Judgment of competent tribunal binding until reversed......................................................................... 44 46 Courts of limited jurisdiction...... 46 47 47 48 Such judgment is conclusive, though erroneous.. Federal judgments are binding though jurisdiction do not affirmatively appear, Federal Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in criminal cases to revise, reverse or affirm judgments of lower courts, p. 201. Cited and followed in In re Callicot, 8 Blatchf. 91, F. C. 2,323, holding circuit judge has no power to review on habeas corpus judgment of conviction by Circuit Court; United States v. Plumer, 3 Cliff. 27, F. C. 16,055, denying application for writ of error from Circuit Court to Supreme Court in murder case. Approved in United States v. McElroy, 2 Mont. 496, interpreting statute giving appeal from District Court of territory. Approved in Forsyth v. United States, 9 How. 572, 13 L. 263, holding, however, under act of Congress, Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction, civil and criminal, over territorial courts of Florida. Approved in dissenting opinions in Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 185, 21 L. 882, majority discharging prisoner on ground that Circuit Court exceeded its authority in sentencing him twice; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 283, 25 L. 657, majority holding, on division of Circuit Court, that trial of revenue official for murder may be transferred to Federal courts. Habeas corpus.- Power to award writ is conferred on Federal Supreme Court by fourteenth section of judiciary act, p. 201. Cited and holding affirmed and relied upon in Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 166, 21 L. 875, collecting cases, and holding writ will issue to determine whether Circuit Court has exceeded its authority; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 375, 25 L. 718, issuing writ to test constitutionality of election law under which prisoner was convicted; Ex parte Des Rochers, McAll. 73, F. C. 3,824, issuing writ at instance of litigant to determine legality of imprisonment of judge; In re Kaine, 14 Fed. Cas. 87. Cited generally in In re Barry, 136 U. S. 607, 34 L. 507, 42 Fed. 120, F. C. 1,059, note, on point that Federal courts have no powers other than those expressly conferred; Electoral College of South Carolina, 1 Hughes, 588, F. C. 4,336, issuing writ and discharging prisoners because acting in Federal capacity as election officers; Seavey v. Seymour, 3 Cliff. 443, F. C. 12,596, releasing minors enlisted in army from custody of military authorities; State v. Neel, 48 Ark. 288, 3 S. W. 633; In re McDonald, 16 Fed. Cas. 23. Cited, but without particular application of the rule, in United States v. New Bedford, etc., Co., 1 Wood. & M. 408, F. C. 15,867, holding States may punish crimes jurisdiction over which has not been delegated to general government. Habeas corpus.- Where court is satisfied, upon application for writ, that prisoner would be remanded upon the return, writ ought not to be awarded, p. 201. This holding is affirmed and relied upon by the following citing cases: Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 110, 18 L. 292, holding Circuit Court was justified in refusing writ when satisfied from prisoner's showing that he was rightfully detained; Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 250, 29 L. 871, 6 S. Ct. 739, and In re Hacker, 73 Fed. 467, affirming denial of writ by Circuit Court on ground that prisoner would be remanded on return of writ; Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 301, 32 L. 408, 9 S. Ct. 78, denying writ where it appears from petition that prisoner is rightfully held; Iasigi v. Van de Carr, 166 U. S. 394, 41 L. 1049, 17 S. Ct. 596, holding where prisoner is dismissed from consular service pending return to writ, it is not error to dismiss writ; In re Barry, 136 U. S. 601, 34 L. 505, 42 Fed. 116, F. C. 1,059, denying writ because petition shows prisoner would be remanded upon return of writ; Ex parte Hill, 38 Ala. 443, holding writ should be refused where petition itself shows judge applied to has not jurisdiction; Bethuram v. Black, 11 Bush, 632, sustaining demurrer to petition for writ; Sims' Case, 7 Cush. 292, refusing writ upon consideration of petition; State v. Dobson, 135 Mo. 11, 36 S. W. 240, holding writ will not issue as of course where petition is insufficient; Williamson's Case, 26 Pa. St. 17, 67 Am. Dec. 379, considering legality of commitment upon application for writ. See also valuable note, 67 Am. Dec. 396; Ex parte Vallandigham, 28 Fed. Cas. 920, refusing writ to military prisoner where court knows it will not be obeyed. Cited generally in In re Terry Contempt, 13 Sawy. 460, quoting from opinion of Supreme Court in In re Terry, 128 U. S. 301, 32 L. 408, 9 S. Ct. 78; In re Kaine, 14 Fed. Cas. 87. Habeas corpus.- In absence of laws prescribing use of this writ, inquiries as to its use at common law are pertinent, p. 201. Cited approvingly, Ex parte Kaine, 3 Blatchf. 5, F. C. 7,597, holding New York decision under statute of that State regulating habeas corpus proceedings is no authority in Federal court; Ex parte Randolph, 2 Brock. 476, F. C. 11,558, discharging upon habeas corpus person detained under civil process as at common law; Ex parte Des Rochers, McAll. 74, F. C. 3,824, issuing writ at instance of litigant to determine legality of imprisonment of judge; In re Barry, 136 U. S. 620, 34 L. 511, 42 Fed. 129, F. C. 1,059, holding Circuit Court will pass on application for writ to determine custody of child according to common-law principles; Peltier v. Pennington, 14 N. J. L. 318, refusing the writ as unwarranted by the authorities; In re Kaine, 14 Fed. Cas. 88, and In re Reynolds, 20 Fed. Cas. 608, holding proceedings on habeas corpus are not controlled by State statutes, but by rules of common law. Cited generally in In re Keeler, Hemp. 308, F. C. 7,637; King v. McLean Asylum, 64 Fed. 347, 348, 21 U. S. App. 481, 26 L. R. A. 792, 793, and United States v. Williamson, 28 Fed. Cas. 689, on point that no law of United States prescribes cases in which writ shall issue; In re McDonald, 16 Fed. Cas. 25. Judgment in its nature concludes the subject on which it is rendered and pronounces the law of the case; it ends inquiry respecting the fact by deciding it, p. 202. Approved in Darden v. Lines, 2 Fla. 571, holding pro forma decree by consent of parties is not a decision and no appeal lies; Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 600, 10 L. 610, concurring opinion, holding Supreme Court cannot review judgment of Circuit Court refusing mandate to secretary of navy. Cited, but without particular application of rule, in Fraser v. Willey, 2 Fla. 119, dissenting opinion. Habeas corpus.- Court issuing writ can inquire into sufficiency of cause of commitment; but if it be judgment of court of competent jurisdiction, that in itself is sufficient cause, and court may not look beyond judgment, p. 202. Cited with approval and rule applied in Grignon v. Astor, 2 How. 339, 11 L. 291, holding judgment cannot be attacked collaterally, although it does not recite jurisdictional facts; In re Metzger, 5 How. 190, 12 L. 110, reviewing cases, and refusing writ to prisoner held by district judge for extradition; In re Wilson, 140 U. S. 583, 35 L. 516, 11 S. Ct. 873, denying writ to review proceedings resulting in indictment of prisoner after his conviction by Arizona District Court; In re Martin, 5 Blatchf. 310, F. C. 9,151, holding Circuit Court may require, in habeas corpus proceeding, evidence taken by commissioner to decide legality of detention; In re Davison, 22 Blatchf. 476, 21 Fed. 621, holding, in habeas corpus by person convicted by court-martial, only question is jurisdiction of that courtmartial; Ex parte Jenkins, 2 Wall. Jr. 528, F. C. 7,259, discharging United States marshals illegally arrested and detained on warrants of justice of peace; In re Jordan, 49 Fed. 241, holding prisoner convicted by State court of competent jurisdiction cannot have errors of such court reviewed in Federal court on habeas corpus; Ex parte Hill, 38 Ala. 503, holding State court must reject application for writ when it appears prisoner is held by authority of Confederate States; Ex parte Hubbard, 65 Ala. 474, refusing writ to prisoner detained under judgment of city court of competent jurisdiction; Cooper v. People, 13 Colo. 371, 22 Pac. 801, 6 L. R. A. 442, concurring opinion, holding court has no authority to release prisoner committed by another court of concurrent jurisdiction; Smith v. Hess, 91 Ind. 429, collecting cases, and refusing on habeas corpus to review trial of prisoner held by conviction of court of competent jurisdiction; Ex parte Holman, 28 Iowa, 97, 98, 4 Am. Rep. 163, refusing in State court to release prisoners held by authority of Federal court; Bell v. State, 4 Gill, 305, 45 Am. Dec. 132, and State v. Glenn, 54 Md. 608, refusing to discharge prisoner held by judgment of competent court, although it be erroneous; Fleming v. Clark, 12 Allen, 195, refusing writ to prisoner convicted by Massachusetts Superior Court; In re Ream, 54 Neb. 669, 75 N. W. 24, denying writ to prisoner after trial and conviction in court of competent jurisdiction; Ex parte Winston, 9 Nev. 75, refusing to discharge prisoner convicted by justice of peace having jurisdiction of his offense; State v. Towle, 42 N. H. 542, reviewing cases and refusing to pass upon regularity of commitment for contempt by justice of peace; Ex parte Bushnell, 9 Ohio St. 183, remanding prisoner held by conviction in United States District Court; Ex parte Ball, 2 Gratt. 590, refusing to discharge slave after conviction as free man by competent court; Ex parte Marx, 86 Va. 44, 9 S. E. 477, refusing to consider insufficiency of evidence at trial of pris oner after conviction in competent court; In re Osterhaus, 18 Fed. Cas. 897, refusing writ to prisoner after conviction in territorial court. Cited generally in In re Barry, 136 U. S. 604, 34 L. 506, 42 Fed. 118, F. C. 1,059, describing writ as one bringing in body of pris oner to be discharged if restraint is illegal; In re Barry, 136 U. S. 612, 34 L. 508, 42 Fed. 124, F. C. 1,059, holding, under habeas corpus act, Circuit Court has no power to determine between parents' right to infant child; Yarbrough v. State, 2 Tex. 521, holding in Texas appeal does not lie in habeas corpus proceedings from District to Supreme Court; People v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 566, 19 Am. Rep. 215; Ex parte Davis, 7 Fed. Cas. 47, In re McDonald, 16 Fed. Cas. 26, holding Federal courts may grant writ where prisoner is not held upon any formal commitment. Approved in dissenting opinion, Hammond v. People, 32 Ill. 472, majority holding appeal does not lie from decision of lower court in habeas corpus proceeding. Cited obiter in Southworth v. United States, 151 U. S. 185, 38 L. 121, 14 S. Ct. 276, holding, in action for services in drawing up warrants, it is immaterial whether persons arrested may be discharged on habeas corpus. Judgments of court of record, whose jurisdiction is final, is conclusive on all the world, and cannot be reviewed by habeas corpus proceedings, pp. 202-203. Cited and followed in Grignon v. Astor, 2 How. 339, 11 L. 291, holding where power of court to make order depends on certain facts, making of order is conclusive of facts; In re Wilson, 140 U. S. 583, 35 L. 516, 11 S. Ct. 873, refusing to review proceedings of grand jury indicting prisoner after his conviction by Arizona District Court; In re Debs, 158 U. S. 600, 39 L. 1108, 15 S. Ct. 912, refusing to review finding of Circuit Court as to fact of prisoner's disobedience of court's order; In re Lennon, 166 U. S. 553, 41 L. 1112, 17 S. Ct. 660, holding prisoner cannot show on habeas corpus that he is citizen of Michigan to release himself from injunction against him as citizen of Ohio; Holmes v. Oregon, etc., R. R., 9 Fed. 233, 7 Sawy. 386, holding finding of Probate Court, that it has jurisdiction by reason of intestate's residence, is conclusive; Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 540, 54 Am. Dec. 232, holding sheriff liable for failure to enforce order of court of competent jurisdiction; In re Lybarger, 2 Wash. 135, 25 Pac. 1077, denying writ to prisoner convicted by competent court. Distinguished in In re Wong Yung Quy, 6 Sawy. 239, 47 Fed. 718, reviewing cases, and reviewing decision of State court claimed by prisoner to be in violation of Constitution and treaties of United States. See also discussion in note, 23 Am. St. Rep. 109. Habeas corpus.- Imprisonment under judgment cannot be unlawful unless that judgment be absolute nullity; and it is not nullity if court has general jurisdiction of subject although it be erroneous, p. 203. A number of citing cases affirm and apply this principle as follows: In re Wilson, 140 U. S. 583, 35 L. 516, 11 S. Ct. 873, refusing to grant writ to prisoner convicted by District Court of Arizona; In re Delgado, 140 U. S. 588, 35 L. 580, 11 S. Ct. 875, refusing on appeal |