Search Supreme Court Cases

COLLINS V. LOISEL, 262 U. S. 426 (1923)

U.S. Supreme Court

Collins v. Loisel, 262 U.S. 426 (1923)

Collins v. Loisel

No. 880

Argued May 4, 1923

Decided June 4, 1923

262 U.S. 426


1. The provision of the Fifth Amendment against double jeopardy does not prevent the commitment of a person for extradition on new affidavits after he has been discharged on others identical in form and substance. P. 262 U. S. 429.

2. Under the extradition treaty with Great Britain, a fugitive may be arrested a second time upon a new complaint charging the same crime when he has been discharged by the magistrate on the first complaint or the first complaint has been withdrawn. P. 262 U. S. 429.

3. Refusal of the State Department to issue a warrant of extradition because of the pendency of habeas corpus proceedings, does not bar further proceedings for the same cause on a new complaint. P. 262 U. S. 430.

4. A discharge in habeas corpus based on mere irregularities in extradition proceedings does not operate as res judicata against a new proceeding for the same offense. P. 262 U. S. 430.

Page 262 U. S. 427

5. The pendency of habeas corpus proceedings relating to one charge in extradition does not deprive the magistrate of jurisdiction to entertain an application for arrest on other charges or render invalid his warrant issued on such application. P. 262 U. S. 430.

6. The crime for which a fugitive is extradited need not be specifically set forth in the magistrate's order of commitment if sufficiently identified by the magistrate's finding and his certificate to the Secretary of State. P. 262 U. S. 431.

7. By established practice, the warrant of extradition issued by the Secretary of State likewse identifies the crime. P. 262 U. S. 431.


Appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing a petition for habeas corpus. See post, 730.

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: COLLINS V. LOISEL, 262 U. S. 426 (1923)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.