CHEONG AH MOY
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Chinese woman was denied entry to the United States under Chinese exclusion acts and sought habeas corpus relief after being ordered deported; the Supreme Court dismissed her writ of error as moot because she had already been deported to China before the appeal was filed, leaving no enforceable right for the court to address.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Millee delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error here is a Chinese woman who, arriving at San Francisco from China, was not permitted to land in that city, by reason of the acts of Congress of May 6, 1882, and the amendatory act of 1884, and, being forcibly kept on board the vessel, sued out a writ of habeas corpus to obtain her release.
On a hearing in the' Circuit Court of the United States, it was ordered that she be returned on board the vessel in which she came, or some other vessel of the same line, to be carried back to China; and she was placed in the custody of the marshal who was directed to execute the order. On undertaking to do this, it was found that the vessel had sailed, and the marshal placed his prisoner in jail for safe keeping, until another vessel should be at hand to remove her. Her counsel, upon, this state of facts, applied to the Circuit Court for permission to give bail on behalf of the woman and have her released from custody. The judges of the Circuit Court were opposed in opinion on the question of granting this motion, and, having overruled it, have certified the division to this court.
, In the mean time it is made to appear to us, by the return of the marshal, and by affidavits, that on the 2d day of October, three days after the order was made overruling the motion, and ten days before the writ of qrror herein was served by filing it in the clerk’s office of the Circuit Court; the marshal had executed the original order of the court by placing the prisoner on board the steamship New York, one of the Pacific Mail Steamships, about to start for China, and that she departed on said vessel on the 7th day of October. It thus appears that the order of deportation had been fully executed, and the petitioner in the writ of habeas corpus placed without the jurisdiction of the court, and of the United States, six days before the writ of error was filed in the Circuit Court, and several days before it was issued.
The question, therefore, which we are asked to decide is a moot question as to plaintiff in error, and if she was permitted' to give bail, it could be of no value to her, as the prder by which she was remanded has been executed, and she is no longer, in the custody of the marshal or in prison.
This court does not sit here to decide questions arising in cases which no longer exist, in regard to rights which it cannot enforce.
The writ of error is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466 (U.S. 1916)…efore it. No stipulation of parties or counsel, whether in the case before the court or in any other case, can enlarge the power, or affect the duty, of the court in this-regard.” See also Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251; Cheong Ah Moy v. United States, 113 U. S. 216; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547; Jones v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147; Security Life Insurance Co. v. Prewitt, 200 U. S. 446; Richardson v. McChesney, 218 U. S. 487; Stearns v. Wood, 236 U. S. 75. • Our attention has indeed been directed to a recent d…
-
Stallings v. Splain, 253 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1920)…ed. [*344] Whether his arrest and detention had' originally been valid was thereby rendered immaterial. In re Esselborn, 8 Fed. Rep. 904. And likewise the question whether there was a right then to remove him. Compare Cheong Ah Moy v. United States, 113 U. S. 216; Ex parte Baez, 177 U. S. 378. Fourth. Stallings’ contention that he should be discharged because the indictment failed to charge a crime under the laws of the United States is also unfounded. He was indicted under § 97 of the Penal Code which decl…
-
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (U.S. 2018)…h Judge Sawyer. Id., at 809, n. 1. But they did not participate in the case, ibid., the two participating judges split 1 to 1, and so the views of presiding Justice Field prevailed. The alien appealed to this Court, Cheong Ah Moy v. United States, 113 U.S. 216, 5 S.Ct. 431, 28 L.Ed. 983 (1885), but before this Court could decide, the ship departed with Cheong Ah Moy aboard. 2. In Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 16 S.Ct. 977, 41 L.Ed. 140 (1896), the Court struck down as unconstitutional a statu…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence