TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McCandless v. United States ex rel. Murphy

McCANDLESS, Commissioner of Immigration v. UNITED STATES ex rel. MURPHY

McCandless v. United States ex rel. Murphy, 47 F.2d 1072 (3d Cir. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 26, 1931
Docket
No. 4510
Judges
Buffington
Citations
47 F.2d 10721931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3628

Opinion of the Court — Buffington

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In this case it appears by her own present and former frank and voluntary statement, that Maggie Agnes Murphy, an immigrant, entered the United States by wrongfully obtaining papers, quota status, etc., in the name of her sister. In view thereof, there can be no doubt that she subjected herself to deportation. The contention made that she was taken to the immigration station without previous arrest and there questioned in no way affects her status as subject to deportation as one unlawfully entering the country. See Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U. S. 149 , 44 S. Ct. 54, 57 , 68 L. Ed. 221 , where it was held:

“Irregularities on the part of the government official prior to, or in connection with, the arrest would not necessarily invalidate later proceedings in all respects conformable to law. ‘A writ of habeas corpus is not like an action to recover damages for an unlawful arrest or commitment, but its object is to ascertain whether the prisoner can lawfully be detained in custody; and if sufficient ground for his detention by the government is shown, he is not to be discharged for defects in the original arrest or commitment.’ ”

It is therefore clear that on the habeas corpus proceeding in the court below her petition for discharge should have been denied and' she remanded to the charge of the immigration authorities. So holding, the record will be remanded, with directions to the court below to dismiss her petition and to remand her to the charge of the immigration officer.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1931: 11934: 11936: 11938: 21952: 11956: 11957: 11961: 119312026peak 1938 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. S- AND B-C9 I. & N. Dec. 436 (BIA 1961)
  2. United States ex rel. Leibowitz v. Schlotfeldt94 F.2d 263 (7th Cir. 1938)
  3. United States ex rel. Fink v. Reimer96 F.2d 217 (2d Cir. 1938)
  4. Vilarino v. Garrity50 F.2d 582 (9th Cir. 1931)
  5. Herman R. Landon, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization v. Elsa Clarke239 F.2d 631 (1st Cir. 1957)
  6. Clarke v. Landon139 F. Supp. 113 (D. Mass. 1956)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149 (1923) 421

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list