Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Md. 271

In re Coston

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided July 7, 1865

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1865-07-07

<p>Petition filed in the Court of Appeals of Maryland.</p> <p>This was a petition filed in this Court, asking the Court to pass an order requiring tho Clerk of the Criminal Court of Baltimore city to make out and transmit to the said Court of Appeals a transcript of the record in d Habeas Corpus case in said Criminal Court, wherein Sarah Coston, the mother and next friend of Simon Coston and Washington Coston, was petitioner, and the said Samuel S. Coston respondent; in which case the said Samuel S. Coston had prayed an appeal from an order of the said Criminal Court, discharging the said Simon and Washington, hut which said prayer of appeal had been overruled by the Court below, (Bond, J.,) on the ground that no appeal lies in cases of Habeas Corpus. With the petition were filed certified copies of the papers filed in the Habeas Corpus case, the contents of which need not here be particularly set- forth, as they will fully appear in the case of Coston vs. Coston, hereafter to he reported.</p> <p>The points argued in the matter of the petition are much more elaborately presented in the written arguments submitted in the Habeas Corpus case, afterwards brought to this Court on writ of error, and decided at the April Term 1866; it is, therefore, deemed unnecessary to present them here.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Among the reasons assigned for this conclusion are, that the writ of habeas corpus, is a proceeding summary in its character, addressed to the discretion of the Judge or tribunal, to whom the application is made, so far as the discharge of the party is concerned; a proceeding where, in many cases, the evidence upon which the judgment is founded cannot be presented to the appellate court, and is not final and conclusive upon the party applying for the writ, as he may prefer a similar application to any other Judge or court of the State.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Fuller v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1865-07-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2007

6 state decisions

20186518701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bowie, C. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of this Court:

¶2It is the exclusive right and province of this Court to determine the hounds of its jurisdiction, and decide in what cases an appeal does or does not lie from the judgments of inferior tribunals, otherwise suitors might be entirely deprived of the benefit of an appeal, by the very authors of the errors by which they deem themselves aggrieved.

¶3The Acts of Assembly and the Code, have declared the cases in which appeals will lie', and the manner and time of taking and prosecuting appeals from Courts of Law. These are limited to “any judgment or determination of any Court of Law, in any civil suit or action,” &c. Code, Art. 5, sec. S.

¶4The legal interpretation of these terms, which were derived from preceding Acts of Assembly, has been established by this Court in the case of Bell vs. The State, 4 Gill, 304, where it was said:. “It is clear, we think, that the order of a County Court, dismissing the application of the petitioner to be discharged from custody, on a writ of “habeas corpus,” is not a determination or judgment of the Court, in a civil suit or action, in the contemplation of the Act of 1185, ch. 81, so as to authorise an appeal.”

¶5Among the reasons assigned for this conclusion are, that the writ of habeas corpus, is a proceeding summary in its character, addressed to the discretion- of the Judge or tribunal, to whom the application is made, so far as the.discharge of the party is concerned; a proceeding where, in many cases, the evidence upon which the judgment is founded cannot be presented to the Appellate Court, and is not final and conclusive upon the party applying for the writ, as he may prefer a similar application to any other Judge or Court of the State.

¶6This case has been referred to and recognized in the case of Mace vs. The State, 5 Md. Rep., 337, upon an incidental *273point. It must be regarded as decisive of the question of the right of appeal in cases of habeas corpus, issued by Courts or Judges having jurisdiction and legal authority to issue the same. In such cases, we hold, where there has been no assumption of authority, no right of appeal has been given by the statute or Code to this Court, and none exists. The petition must therefore be dismissed-.

(Decided July 7th, 1865.)

¶7 Petition dismissed.

/23/md/271 · .json · Public domain