Hobbs v. State of Tennessee

14 Citing cases

  1. Scott v. State

    33 So. 2d 390 (Ala. Crim. App. 1948)   Cited 25 times

    " On hearing in the Court below the petitioner contended his extradition under these facts would be in direct violation of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 68, Title 15, Code of Alabama of 1940, and the law as expressed in Hobbs v. State of Tennessee ex rel. State of Alabama, 1942, 30 Ala. App. 412, 8 So.2d 595, certiorari denied Ex parte State, 243 Ala. 102, 8 So.2d 596. The case, as stated, is here on appeal under Section 369, Title 15, Code of Alabama of 1940. A check is essentially commercial paper, possessing the attributes of a contract, and certain characteristics of property, and it is equivalent to a promise to pay upon the part of the drawer.

  2. Bishop v. State

    92 So. 2d 323 (Ala. Crim. App. 1957)   Cited 5 times

    Roberts Orme, Gadsden, for appellant. A person in this State cannot be extradited to another state where the proceeding directly or indirectly serves to aid in the collection of a debt, demand or claim against him. Code 1940, Tit. 15 § 68; Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390; Hobbs v. State of Tennessee ex rel. State of Alabama, 30 Ala. App. 412, 8 So.2d 595; State of Tennessee v. Hamilton, 28 Ala. App. 587, 190 So. 306. John Patterson, Atty. Gen., Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Chas. B. Bailey, Jr., Livingston, of counsel, for the State.

  3. Harris v. State

    82 So. 2d 430 (Ala. Crim. App. 1955)

    Though the evidence is sufficient to make a prima facie case for holding petitioner in custody as a fugitive from justice, the court may look behind the prima facie case to see whether or not the warrant of the Governor was issued in a case not authorized by law. Hobbs v. State of Tennessee ex rel. State of Alabama, 30 Ala. App. 412, 8 So.2d 595. The evidence shows without dispute that petitioner is sought to be extradited for the purpose of collecting a debt in contravention of the statute. Hobbs v. State of Tennessee ex rel. State of Alabama, supra; Russell v. State, 251 Ala. 268, 37 So.2d 233; State of Tennessee v. Hamilton, 28 Ala. App. 587, 190 So. 306; Tingley v. State, 34 Ala. App. 145, 37 So.2d 678; Id., 251 Ala. 452, 37 So.2d 680. Under the circumstances, this Court will reverse and render judgment the trial court should have rendered.

  4. Stubblefield v. State

    47 So. 2d 662 (Ala. Crim. App. 1950)   Cited 9 times

    The extradition proceeding is in violation of the statute, in that it is an attempt to collect a debt. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 68; Hobbs v. State of Tenn., 30 Ala. App. 412, 8 So.2d 595; Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390; Russell v. State, 251 Ala. 268, 37 So.2d 233. A.A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Wm. N. McQueen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

  5. Tingley v. State

    34 Ala. App. 145 (Ala. Crim. App. 1948)   Cited 7 times

    That papers on file presented a prima facie case for holding accused in custody does not preclude the court from looking behind the prima facie case to see whether the warrant of the Governor was issued in a case not authorized by law. State of Tennessee v. Hamilton, 28 Ala. App. 587, 190 So. 306; Hobbs v. State of Tennessee, 30 Ala. App. 412, 8 So.2d 595; Id., 243 Ala. 102, 8 So.2d 596; 29 C.J. 76; Kuney v. State, 88 Fla. 354, 102 So. 547. Extradition is not authorized to aid directly or indirectly in the collection of debt. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 68; Hobbs v. State of Tennessee, supra.

  6. Kilgore v. State

    75 So. 2d 126 (Ala. 1954)   Cited 9 times

    Huey Hawkins, Wm. N. Hawkins, Birmingham, for appellant. A person cannot be imprisoned for debt, and the statute interdicts the use of extradition proceedings to aid in or accomplish such result directly or indirectly. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 68; Stubblefield v. State, 35 Ala. App. 419, 47 So.2d 662; Tingley v. State, 34 Ala. App. 145, 37 So.2d 678; Id., 251 Ala. 452, 37 So.2d 680; Russell v. State, 251 Ala. 268, 37 So.2d 233; Hobbs v. State, 30 Ala. App. 412, 8 So.2d 595; Ex parte State, 243 Ala. 102, 8 So.2d 596; 35 C.J.S., Extradition, § 3, p. 319. Although evidence sought to be introduced by appellant might not be sufficient to show his release from custody, refusal to admit same constitutes reversible error.

  7. Russell v. State

    37 So. 2d 233 (Ala. 1948)   Cited 18 times

    Code of 1940, Tit. 15, § 54; Ex parte Shillings, supra. It is also well established law that a person cannot be imprisoned for debt and our statute interdicts the use of extradition proceedings to aid in or accomplish such result directly or indirectly. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 68; 35 C.J.S. Extradition, § 2, page 319; Hobbs v. State of Tennessee ex rel. State of Alabama, 30 Ala. App. 412, 8 So.2d 595, certiorari denied Ex parte State, 243 Ala. 102, 8 So.2d 596; Ex parte Slauson, CC., 73 F. 666; Work v. Corrington, 34 Ohio St. 64, 32 Am.Rep. 345; Compton, Ault Co. v. Wilder, 40 Ohio St. 130; State v. Gregg, 68 Ohio App. 397, 40 N.E.2d 167; In re Extradition of Williams, 5 Ohio App. 55; Commonwealth ex rel. Spivak v. Heinz, 141 Pa. Super. 158, 14 A.2d 875; Ex parte Kuhns, 36 Nev. 487, 137 P. 83, 50 L.R.A., N.S., 507; Ex parte Owens, 34 Okl. Cr. 128, 245 P. 68; Ex parte Maddox, 55 Okl.Cr. 114, 25 P.2d 1111; Ex parte Offutt, 29 Okl.Cr. 401, 234 P. 222; Ex parte Johnson, 55 Okl.Cr. 154, 27 P.2d 171; Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390. Consonant with this principle, the Court of Appeals in the instant case concluded upon full consideration of the evidence in the record that the proceeding was not in good faith but for the purpose of collecting a debt, stating the result of the court's finding in the opinion of that court that the proceeding "was instituted to aid in the co

  8. Ex Parte State

    8 So. 2d 596 (Ala. 1942)   Cited 5 times
    In Hobbs as well as in Chatham v. State, 46 Ala. App. 729, 248 So.2d 768; Harris v. State, 38 Ala. App. 284, 82 So.2d 439; King v. State, 36 Ala. App. 368, 56 So.2d 379; Stubblefield v. State, 35 Ala. App. 419, 47 So.2d 662; and Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390, it was held that there was a sufficient showing with reference to aid in the collection of a debt to prevent extradition.

    Certiorari to Court of Appeals. Petition of the State, by its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in the case of Hobbs v. State of Tennessee, 30 Ala. App. 412, 8 So.2d 595. Writ denied.

  9. Williams v. State

    130 So. 2d 351 (Ala. Crim. App. 1961)   Cited 4 times

    "In those cases wherein it has been held that the extradition proceedings were for the collection of a debt there was undisputed evidence of threats of criminal prosecution, or prior civil litigation involving the claim or debt, or that the payee of the check was informed at the time the check was given that there were not sufficient funds in the drawee bank to cover it. See Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390; Russell v. State, 34 Ala. App. 52, 37 So.2d 231; Stubblefield v. State, 35 Ala. App. 419, 47 So.2d 662; Hobbs v. State of Tennessee ex rel. etc., 30 Ala. App. 412, 8 So.2d 595."

  10. Blackwell v. State

    89 So. 2d 228 (Ala. Crim. App. 1956)   Cited 7 times

    In those cases wherein it has been held that the extradition proceedings were for the collection of a debt there was undisputed evidence of threats of criminal prosecution, or prior civil litigation involving the claim or debt, or that the payee of the check was informed at the time the check was given that there were not sufficient funds in the drawee bank to cover it. See Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390; Russell v. State, 34 Ala. App. 52, 37 So.2d 231; Stubblefield v. State, 35 Ala. App. 419, 47 So.2d 662; Hobbs v. State of Tennessee ex rel. etc., 30 Ala. App. 412, 8 So.2d 595. While in the present case the petitioner did testify that he informed Covington in his first telephone call that he did not have sufficient funds presently on deposit to cover the check, there is no intimation of such fact in the testimony of Mr. Covington. Certainly the fact that Covington called the petitioner upon being informed that the check had been turned down, and was told to put the check through again and it would be taken care of, raises inferences incompatible with the petitioner's version of this transaction.