Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Binn. 176

Commonwealth v. Alexander

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 4, 1813

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1813-10-04

<p>Prisoner discharged, because the. warrant was coun^Joifeftiissioners to collect a nne, and mention. ed no proceeding iuraffesued; nor the bJrifg° b" f if the proceeding ?mposbg\™hadal been shewn, the left the prisoner noUiavetideéided summarily upon the merits.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1831

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1813-10-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Tilghman C. J.

¶1delivered the Court’s opinion.

¶2It appears from the return, to this habeas corpus, that Teach is held in prison by virtue of a warrant from the commissioners of Franklin county, for the collection of a militia fine. The warrant contains a naked precept to collect tbe fine, without mention of any proceeding whatever, by virtue of which it was issued. The commissioners have no authority to issue a warrant without some foundation; and as no foundation has been shewn either on the face of the warrant or otherwise, although the commissioners have *177had notice of dhe habeas- corpus, it is the opinion of the -Court th.at the prisoner should be,discharged from confine- . inent. It will be understood, that we pass no opinion on the -legality b'f the imposition of this .fine. That being a matter ,, in which-many persons are concerned, we {should think it most proper for those who mean, to contest it, to make it the subject of an action, in which the matter may be fully inquired into, and solemnly decided.

¶3Prisoner discharged.

/6/binn/176 · .json · Public domain