Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran
United States Supreme Court
188 U.S. 691 (1903)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
The Governor of Tennessee filed extradition documents with the Governor of New York demanding the arrest and delivery of Corkran (plaintiff) who was alleged to have committed the crimes of grand larceny and false pretenses in violation of Tennessee state law. The documents alleged that Corkran was a fugitive from justice and had been present in the state when the crimes were committed. The Governor of New York processed the extradition paperwork and an arrest warrant was issued for Corkran. Hyatt (defendant), the chief of police of Albany, New York, arrested and detained Corkran. Thereafter, Corkran filed a writ of habeas corpus in a New York supreme court seeking his release. At a hearing, Corkran testified that he had travelled from New York to Chattanooga, Tennessee, on business and, after completing the business, returned home to New York. Corkran also showed that he was not in Tennessee on the dates the alleged crimes took place. The supreme court rejected Corkran’s request for release and the decision was affirmed by the appellate division of the supreme court of New York. However, the Court of Appeals of New York reversed those decisions and ordered Corkran released. Hyatt appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peckham, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.