Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Moyer v. Nichols

203 U.S. 221· 1906· U.S. Supreme Court
203 U.S. 221 (1906) MOYER v. NICHOLS. No. 250. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 10, 11, 1906. Decided December 3, 1906. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO. Mr. Edmund F. Richardson and Mr. Clarence S. Darrow, with whom Mr. John H. Murphy was on the brief, for appellants. Mr. James H. Hawley, with whom Mr. W.E. Borah was on the brief, for appellee. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. This case does not differ, in principle or in its facts, from Pettibone v. Nichols , just decided. Moyer was also charged with the murder of Steunenberg, and was arrested in Colorado, upon the warrant of the Governor of that State, and taken to Idaho, and delivered to its authorities. He was embraced in the same indictment with Pettibone, and was held in custody for trial under that indictment. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of Idaho, but the writ was *222 dismissed by that court, Ex parte Moyer, 85 P. 897 , and a writ of error has been prosecuted to this court. That is case No. 266 on our present docket. He then sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the Circuit Court of the United States, and his discharge being refused by the court, he prosecuted the present appeal. For the reason stated in Pettibone's case, the final order is Affirmed. MR. JUSTICE McKENNA dissents. The final order of the Circuit Court of the United States for Idaho, in Haywood v. Nichols, No. 251, on appeal, is affirmed on the authority of Pettibone v. Nichols , ante, p. 192, from which, as to the facts or the questions involved, it does not differ. The orders in Pettibone v. Whitney, No. 265, Morey v. Whitney, No. 266, and Haywood v. Whitney, No. 267 — each of which cases is here upon writ of error to the Supreme Court of Idaho — involve the same questions as those determined in Pettibone v. Nichols , and by agreement is to depend upon the judgment in that case, must also be affirmed. It is so ordered. MR. JUSTICE McKENNA dissents.

Public-domain opinion of the United States Supreme Court, reproduced from the court record (U.S. Reports). Historical text may contain OCR artifacts. Provided for reference — not legal advice.

★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.