In Local 167 v. United States, 291 U.S. 293, the judgment and decree were affirmed without change, the Court observing, at 299: "The United States is entitled to effective relief....
In Lewis v. Frick, 233 U.S. 291, 304, 34 S.Ct. 488, 58 L.Ed. 967, the point was held open whether the terminus ad quem in a warrant of deportation was "open to inquiry upon habeas corpus."
In Stone v. United States, 167 U.S. 178, 189, 17 S.Ct. 778, 42 L.Ed. 127 (1897), we held that a party appealing from the judgment in one of two cases consolidated for trial could not also raise claims with respect to the other case.
In United States v. Accardo, 113 F. Supp. 783 (D.N.J.), affirmed and adopted in 208 F.2d 632 (3d Cir.), the question was given extensive consideration where a plea of guilty to a felony was applied by estoppel in a proceeding to revoke defendant's naturalization.
Stating that "[t]he general rule of the common law is that a judgment in a criminal proceeding cannot be read in evidence in a civil action to establish any fact there determined" and identifying the primary reason for this rule as "the parties are not the same"