210 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion of ?e Cour? Fed. Pep. 631; In re Hotu?ton, 94 Fed. Pep. 119; Anderson v. Elliott, 101 Fed. Pep. 609; State v. Laing, 133 Fed. Pep. 887. The other questions involved in th? ca?e are fully discu?ed in Ez part, Young, ante, p. 123. MR. JUSTICE PECKIL?M, after ma 'king the'foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. After the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States had attached by the filing of the bill of complaint in the case already mentioned, of the Solgher? Railway Company v. McNeil a?l others, members of the Corporation Commi?sien, and after the issuing and service of the injunction, as above �stated, the defendant Wood, acting under and in obedience to the provisions of such injunction, sold the railroad tickets at the usual price and at the same time complied with the condi- tions contained in the injunction, by giving the coupons for the difference in price, and while so complying with the terms of such injunction was arrested and proceeded against crimi- nally for disobedience of the act fixing rates. Being detained in custody by virtue of this conviction by one of the police courts of the State, he had the right to apply for a writ of habe? corpus to the United States Circuit Judge, and that judge had of the Ecviscd Statutes of the United States (1 U.S. Comp. Star., p. 592), as he was then in custody for an act done pursu- ant to an order, process or decree of a court or judge of the United States. See In re Nea?k, 135 U.S. 1. The writ being properly issued, the judge had the right, and it was his duty, to examine into the facts, and he had jurisdiction to discharge the petitioner under the circumstances stated. The other questions raised herein have bc?n sufficiently discussed in Ex part? Young, just decided, and require no further attention.
�
