Such writ of habeas corpus shall not be disobeyed for any defect of form. It is sufficient:

A. if the person having the custody of the prisoner is designated either by his name or office, if he has any, or by his own name, or if both such names are unknown or uncertain, he may be described by any assumed appellation, and any one [anyone] who may be served with the writ, shall be deemed to be the person to whom it is directed, although it is directed to him by a wrong name or description, or to another person;

B. if the person who is directed to be produced is designated by name, or if his name is uncertain or unknown, he may be described in any other way so as to designate the person intended.

History: Laws 1884, ch. 1, § 7; C.L. 1884, § 2018; C.L. 1897, § 2787; Code 1915, § 2595; C.S. 1929, § 63-107; 1941 Comp., § 25-1107; 1953 Comp., § 22-11-7.

Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.

No civil liability for misconstruing when writ required. — Fact that district judge and law officer may have mistakenly concluded an order or writ was necessary to effect the release of child from unlawful detention charged in the criminal complaint, and that they may have misconstrued the nature of the order or writ which should be issued, did not confer upon plaintiff a right to recover damages for being compelled to release child from the unlawful imprisonment or restraint plaintiff was exercising over the child. Had a writ of habeas corpus been issued by the judge and served upon plaintiff, he could not be excused for disobedience thereof because of any defect of form. Torres v. Glasgow, 1969-NMCA-053, 80 N.M. 412, 456 P.2d 886.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 176.