State ex rel. Georgian v. Jensen
Cited by
- State v. Bailey 262 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1977
- State ex rel. LaRose v. Granquist 140 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1966
- Lee v. Molter 35 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1949
- Koscielski v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 234 N.W. 693 Minn. 1931
- Jones v. Great Northern Railway Co. 227 N.W. 45 Minn. 1929
- Anton v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 214 N.W. 661 Minn. 1927
- Munson v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 212 N.W. 946 Minn. 1927
- Olin v. Minnesota Transfer Railway Co. 205 N.W. 440 Minn. 1925
- Turner v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 205 N.W. 213 Minn. 1925
- Richter v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 204 N.W. 881 Minn. 1925
- McCarty v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 198 N.W. 814 Minn. 1924
- Perkins v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 197 N.W. 758 Minn. 1924
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State ex rel. Nemec v. Sheriff of Hennepin County 148 Minn. 484
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. Upon the demand of the Governor of the state of Michigan, the Governor of this state issued his warrant for the rendition of Alex E. Georgian as a fugitive from justice. A writ of habeas corpus issued by the district court of Plennepin county was discharged by that court. The relator appealed to this court, and the cause was submitted on an agreed statement of facts. It is claimed that the complaint on which the Michigan warrant was issued is defective in that it was not properly sworn to, but an inspection of the authenticated copy annexed to the requisition shows this claim to be unfounded. That a warrant issued on such a complaint is a sufficient basis for the requisition was decided in State ex rel. v. Sheriff of Hennepin County, 148 Minn. 484 , 181 N. W. 640 . The question as to the guilt or innocence of the accused cannot be inquired into on this proceeding. Neither can the claim that the Michigan statute is unconstitutional. It appears that the accused was in Michigan at the time of the commission of the alleged offense and is now in this state, that the proceedings to charge him with the offense are regular and sufficient in form, and that *541 the Governor’s warrant directing the sheriff of Hennepin county to deliver him ■ to the agent of t'he state- of Michigan was duly issued. The stay directed 'by the Governor to allow a hearing on a writ of habeas corpus did not vitiate the warrant. The order discharging the writ is affirmed.