Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

51 Cal. 285

Ex parte Rosenblat

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1876

California Supreme Court · decided 1876-07-01

On the 20th of January, 1876, Rosenblat was arrested in San Francisco by the chief of police on a warrant issued by the judge of the Police Court, charging him with being a fugitive from justice, and with having fled from the City and State of New York, where he had committed the crime of obtaining money under false pretenses. The judge continued the hearing of the case from time to time until the 29th of January.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1964

6 state decisions

301876188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

¶1Under the Constitution of the United States and the act of Congress, a State is bound to surrender a fugitive for whom a proper requisition has been-issued by the Governor of the sister State. The act of the Legislature was passed as auxiliary to the proceedings under the Constitution and act of Congress, but is based solely on principles of comity; and the Legislature had power to affix as many conditions as to the mode in which the preliminary arrest and examination should be conducted as the Legislature deemed proper.

¶2We are inclined to the belief that a person thus arrested, with a view to his being surrendered on requisition expected to arrive, is entitled to his discharge if his examination is not brought on before the magistrate within six days. The act of the Legislature which authorizes such preliminary arrest should be strictly complied with, but we do not think it necessary to decide that question in the present case.

¶3*288This is not a ease in which writs have been issued both from a State court and a United States court, where the officer of the State or Federal court,, as the case may be, first serving the writ is entitled to retain possession of the body.

¶4We think, reference being had to the obligation imposed by the Constitution of the United States, that the same rule is applicable to a proceeding under a requisition from the Governor of another State as applies when the question is between a criminal proceeding initiated in this State and a civil action. In such case the interest of the private suitor who has caused a defendant to be arrested must yield to the paramount interest of the people of the State.

¶5Ordered that H. H. Ellis, chief of police of the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, be, and he is hereby authorized to serve the warrant of arrest issued by the Governor of the State of California, upon the requisition of the Governor of the State of New York, for the surrender and delivery of Bosenblat, and to deliver said Bosenblat to Bichard O’Connor, agent of the State of New York ; and the sheriff of said city and county is hereby authorized and directed to surrender and deliver the body of said Samson Bosenblat into the custody of said H. H. Ellis, chief of police as aforesaid, for the purposes aforesaid.

/51/cal/285 · .json · Public domain