Rogers, Howard Redden and Wm. H. Mills, Birmingham, for appellee. Extradition proceedings may not be used where they directly or indirectly seek to aid in the collection of any debt, demand or claim against the party sought to be extradited. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 68; Kilgore v. State, 261 Ala. 465, 75 So.2d 126; Russell v. State, 251 Ala. 268, 37 So.2d 233; Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390. Liberal rules of procedure are applied on habeas corpus hearings and the trial judge in such a case should allow and give due consideration to any and all evidence which might show that the real purpose of extradition is for the collection of a debt.
Jas. M. Prestwood, of Andalusia, opposed. The Court of Appeals properly applied the law to the facts, and this Court will not review the Court of Appeals on finding of fact. Ex parte Galloway, 209 Ala. 469, 96 So. 369; Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 68; Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390. BROWN, Justice.
Parker Garrett, Birmingham, for appellant. Extradition proceeding which directly or indirectly seeks to aid in the collection of a debt, demand, or claim, is prohibited and it is the responsibility of the courts to see that such statutory provisions are not violated. Title 15, Section 68, Code of Alabama, Recompiled 1958; Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390; Bishop v. State, 38 Ala. App. 667, 92 So.2d 323; Chatham v. State, 46 Ala. App. 729, 248 So.2d. 768. William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Rosa G. Hamlett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Relief should be granted in a habeas corpus proceeding where it appears that extradition proceedings have been instituted for the direct or indirect purpose of aiding in the collection of a debt. Code of Alabama 1940, Recompiled 1958, Title 15, Section 68; Stubblefield v. State, 35 Ala. App. 419, 47 So.2d 662; King v. State, 36 Ala. App. 368, 56 So.2d 379; Russell v. State, 34 Ala. App. 452, 37 So.2d 231; Id., 251 Ala. 268, 37 So.2d 233; Harris v. State, 38 Ala. App. 284, 82 So.2d 439; Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390; Hobbs v. State, 243 Ala. 102, 8 So.2d 595. MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Jasper B. Roberts, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Ex Parte Messer, 228 Ala. 16, 152 So. 244; Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Dover, 221 Ala. 612, 130 So. 335. An extradition may not be used to aid in the collection of a debt. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 68; Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390; State of Tenn. v. Hamilton, 28 Ala. App. 587, 190 So. 306; Stubblefield v. State, 35 Ala. App. 419, 47 So.2d 662. MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Jerry L. Coe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
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.
A check is a personal obligation on the part of the maker to pay the debt or obligation evidenced thereby. Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 329, 33 So.2d 390. 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.
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.
The statutes do not authorize extradition of a person in this State to another State where the proceeding, directly or indirectly, seeks to aid in the collection of a debt. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 68; Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390. A.A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
`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. It is executory in its nature.' Scott v. State, 33 Ala.App. 328, 330, 33 So.2d 390 (1948). `A check is a contract.