for the corporation in a suit to which the off-
cer is a party, after hearing on due notice and
appearance, to order him to turn over such
property to the receiver.

6. A jury trial is not necessary to due process
of law on an inquiry for contempt.
[Nos. 632, 633.]
Argued May 5, 6, 1898.


State, requiring him to deliver to the receiver of the Houston Cemetery Company certain books and property of that company. Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Judgments of the Circuit Court and of the

See same case below (Tex. Civ. App.) 36 S. W. Rep. 802, 37 Tex. Crim. Rep.

Decided May 31, S. W. 306.


The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. James L. Bishop for appellant and plaintiff in error:

The commitment and the order on which it was made were void.

Distinct and incompatible proceedings were blended in one judgment.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas dismissing a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the imprisonment of Thomas Tinsley for a contempt; and in error to the Court of Criminal Re Chiles, 22 Wall. 157 (22: 819); PeoAppeals of the State of Texas to review a ple, Munsell, v. New York County Ct. of Oyer judgment dismissing a writ of habeas corpus & Terminer, 101 N. Y. 245, 54 Am. Rep. 691. and remanding said Tinsley to the custody Regarding the order as made in the proof the sheriff for the same contempt of court, ceeding as a civil remedy directing the appelwhich was disobeying the order of the Dis-lant to deliver the property specified to the trict Court of the County of Harris in said | receiver, or in default of delivery that he be As to powers of court to punish for contempt, | ceptional nature. Baker v. Grice, 169 U. s. -see note to Ea parte Robinson, 22: 205. 284 (42:748).

That there is no review of decree punishing for contempt; limits to rule, see note to New Orleans v. New York Mail S. S. Co. 22: 354.

As to powers and duties of receivers,-see note to Davis v. Gray, 21:447.

As to presumption of innocence in habeas corpus proceedings, see note to State v. Jones (N. C.) 22 L. R. A. 678.

tion of the petitioner under order of a state Habeas corpus will lie to prevent the execucourt, pending an appeal in previous habeas corpus proceedings instituted by him in a Federal court, the effect of which is to stay proceedings in the state court. Re Ebanks, 84 Fed. Rep. 311.

Federal officers arrested under a charge made in state courts will be discharged by a Federal court on habeas corpus where there is no ground for a criminal charge under the state laws. Re Lewis, 83 Fed. Rep. 159.

The finding of a commissioner holding a prisoner for removal to another Federal disistrict, as to probable cause to believe that he has been guilty of a crime, will not be disturbed where the testimony, though not strong, tends to show the commission of the offense charged. Re Price, 83 Fed. Rep. 830.

As to jurisdiction of United States courts, to issue writs of habeas corpus,-see note to Re Reinitz (C. C. S. D. N. Y.) 4 L. R. A. 236. Habeas corpus; power of Federal courts to sue; in what cases; when discharge granted; review of decisions; contempt proceedings. The circuit courts of the United States have jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in favor of a person unlawfully restrained of his liberty by state officers under a statute in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Baker v. Grice, 169 U. S. 284 (42: 748).

Error in submitting to the jury only the question of murder in the first degree, while the evidence is sufficient at the most to convict of murder in the second degree, does not constitute such a jurisdictional defect in a conviction for murder in the first degree as to sustain a writ of habeas corpus. Crossley v. California, 168 U. S. 640 (42:610).

A writ of habeas corpus will not be granted by a Federal court to investigate the detention of a person for selling cigarettes without license, under a plain statute making no discriminations against foreign goods or foreign citizens, but simply requiring every person engaged in the business of selling cigarettes to pay a special license tax. Re May, 82 Fed. Rep. 422.

The court cannot upon habeas corpus review a judgment of deportation made by a United States commissioner in respect to a Chinese person upon the facts. Re Tsu Tse Mee, 81 Fed. Rep. 702.

The action of the circuit court of the United States in refusing to grant appeals in habeas A complaint in habeas corpus alleging invalidcorpus cases in favor of a prisoner under judg-ity of process or proceedings under which the ment of a state court cannot be revised on ap- party is held in custody must set out copies of plication to the Supreme Court of the United such process or proceedings, or the essential States for such a writ. Re Boardman, 169 U. parts thereof; and mere averments of conclu8. 39 (42: 653). sions of law are inadequate. Craemer v. Wash

A determination by a state court that judgington, 168 U. S. 124 (42: 407). ment of conviction in a capital case shall not be stayed, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal which is alleged to present Federal questions, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of habeas corpus. Re Boardman, 169 U. S. 39 (42: 653).

A Federal court will not on habeas corpus discharge a prisoner charged with a violation of the criminal laws of one state and apprehended in another, where it appears by the recitals contained in the warrant under which he was arrested and the record of the extradition proceedings, that no right, privilege, or immunity secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States will be violated by remanding him to the custody of the agent of the demanding state. Dawson v. Rushin, 49 U. S. App. 674, 83 Fed. Rep. 306, 28 C. C. A. 354. The regular course of justice in a state court will not be interfered with by habeas corpus In a Federal court, unless the case is of an ex

Writ of habeas corpus cannot perform the office of a writ of error to review proceedings in extradition before an officer authorized to entertain such proceedings. It is efficient only to reach error fatal to the jurisdiction of the officer over the person accused, or over the subject-matter of the accusation. Sternaman v. Peck, 51 U. S. App. 312, 80 Fed. Rep. 883, 26 C. C. A. 214.

Habeas corpus wil' te to review an imprisonment under 000 sentence of a state court, where the question is whether such court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge. Re Waite. 81 Fed. Rep. 359.

Federal courts will not, except in extreme cases, if at all interfere by habeas corpus with confinement of insane person, because steps provided for by the state statute have not been followed, but the proper redress is by appllcation to the state courts. Re Huse, 48 U. 8. App. 318. 79 Fed. Rep. 305, 25 C. C. A. 1.

One held for extradition upon charge of for gery should not be released upon habeas corpus,

committed until he make delivery, it was void for the reason that the court had no authority in a proceeding to punish for contempt to determine the right of possession of property claimed adversely to the receiver or give judgment for the payment of a debt. Ex parte Hollis, 59 Cal. 405; Parker v. Browning, 8 Paige, 388, 35 Am. Dec. 717; Havemeyer v. San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. 84 Cal. 385, 10 L. R. A. 627; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 218 (21: 452); Baldwin v. Wayne County Circuit Judge, 101 Mich. 119; State, Boardman, v. Ball, 5 Wash. 387; Re Muehlfeld, 16 App. Div. 401; Ex parte Grace, 12 Iowa, 208, 79 Am. Dec. 534; State v. Start, 7 Iowa, 501, 74 Am. Dec. 278; Ex parte Hardy, 68 Ala. 303.

The uniform rule is that where a receiver | has been appointed he cannot compel the delivery of property in the possession of third persons, who claim title or right to possession adverse to the judgment debtor by proceedings for contempt.

[ocr errors]

Rodman v. Henry, 17 N. Y. 182; Barnard v. Kobbe, 54 N. Y. 516; West Side Bank v. Pugsley, 47 N. Y. 368: Krone v. Klotz, 3 App. Div. 587; Re Havlik, 45 Neb. 747; Edgarton v. Hanna, 11 Ohio St. 323.

Jurisdiction means something more than that a party has been brought before the court, or that the court has a general jurisdiction of the subject-matter-it requires that the particular subject-matter shall have been brought into issue in the particular action before the court.

Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U S. 254 (35: 464); Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339 (19: 696) Seamster v. Blackstock, S3 Va. 232; Risley v. Phoenix Bank, 83 N. Y. 318, 38 Am. Rep. 421; Shaw v. Broadbent, 129 N. Y. 114; Stannard v. Hubbell, 123 N. Y. 520; Allen v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 18 App. Div. 27.

The title of the receiver related only to the date of his appointment. He took the property as of that date subject to such

where there was legal, though circumstantial, | which it is based is properly authenticated and evidence before the commissioner which he charges an offense committed within the fordeemed sufficient to sustain the charge of foreign state with reasonable fullness and accurgery under the provisions of the treaty. Re Bryant, 80 Fed. Rep. 282.

While the general rule is that parties under prosecution in state courts will not be released by a Federal court on habeas corpus, but will be left to reach the United States Supreme Court by writ of error, the Federal court has the power to do so if special circumstances require. Re Grice, 79 Fed. Rep. 627.

Courts of the United States may exercise a discretion in determining the question of the discharge of a person on habeas corpus who has been arrested as a fugitive in a state proceeding in aid of a prosecution for the violation of the laws of another state. Iasigi v. Van De Carr, 166 U. S. 391 (41: 1045).

A writ of habeas corpus cannot be made use of to perform_the_functions of a writ of error or an appeal. Re Lennon, 166 U. S. 548 (41: 1110) Re Rowe, 40 U. S. App. 516, 77 Fed. Rep. 161, 23 C. C. A. 103.

A conviction on a verdict which fails to specify the degree of the crime, when the law divides it into degrees. with punishment varying according to the degree, although it is erroneous, is not a jurisdictional defect for which the convict can be released on habeas corpus. Re Eckart, 166 U. S. 481 (41:1085).


Habeas corpus in contempt proceedings: parte Smith, 177 Ill. 63; Ex parte Terry, 148 U. S. 289 (32: 405); Ex parte Ah Men, 77 Cal. 198; Re Morris, 39 Kan. 28; Ex parte Robertson, 27 Tex. App. 628; Ex parte Wilson 73 Cal. 97: Re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586 (34: 500): Langenberg v. Decker, 131 Ind. 471, 16 L. R. A. 108; Com. v. Bell, 145 Pa. 374 Ex parte Brown, 97 Cal. 83; Re Whetstone, 9 Utah, 156; Re Taylor, 8 Misc. 159; Re McMaster, 2 Okla. 435; Ex parte Wright, 32 N. B. 54; Re Parman, 1 Ohio N. P. 127; Re Rosenberg, 90 Wis. 581; Er parte Lennon, 22 U. S. App. 561, 64 Fed. Rep. 320, 12 C. C. A. 134; Ex parte O'Brien, 127 Mo. 477.

The question of error in an order consolidating indictments cannot be re-examined by writ of habeas corpus, as error in that respect would not make the judgment and sentence void as without jurisdiction and authority. Howard v. United States, 43 U. S. App. 678. 75 Fed. Rep. 986, 21 C. C. A. 586, 34 L. R. A. 509.

After a decision of a state court of competent jurisdiction when it is still contended that the Federal Constitution has been violated, a Federal court has the power, and it is its duty, to interfere by habeas corpus for the protection of the rights violated, but not unless there is a plain case requiring it. Re Krug, 79 Fed. Rep. 308.

An executive warrant for the arrest of a fugltive from justice will be upheld on habeas corpus when the foreign indictment or affidavit on

acy, and will not be pronounced void because of some technical defect in the foreign indictment or affidavit, if the offense is substantially alleged or described. Webb v. York, 49 U. S. App. 163, 79 Fed. Rep. 616.

An excess or abuse in the mode of detention of an accused person does not, except in a very grave and unusual case, entitle him to a discharge, by a writ of habeas corpus, from all confinement, and the rule applies where the arrest is under military law. Closson v. United States, Armes, 7 App. D. C. 460.

A letter from the commissioner of internal revenue to a collector, stating that a state court has no right to compel the production of the records of the officers, and that the communications of taxpayers are privileged, is not a regulation having the force of a statute which will entitle a Federal court to review on habeas corpus the imprisonment of a collector for refusal to produce such records in compliance with the order of a state court. Re Hirsch, 74 Fed. Rep. 928.

courts of a state is not entitled to discharge One held under process legally issued by the upon habeas corpus because of illegal or fraudu lent extradition proceedings by which he was brought into the jurisdiction. Re Moore, 75 Fed. Rep. 821.

Habeas corpus cannot be extended so as to enable the Federal court to assume the functiors of an appellate tribunal to review the decisions of state courts, because the petitioner is poor and unable to bear the expense incident to a hearing in the appellate courts of the state. Re Nelson, 69 Fed. Rep. 712.

The decision of a state court denying a writ of error to a person convicted of crime or refusing to make it effectual cannot be revised by habeas corpus proceedings in a Federal court. Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U. S. 293 (40: 432).

The insufficiency of an indictment in a state court will not be a ground for interposition by the courts of the United States by writ of haWhitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. beas corpus. 231 (40 406).

Habeas corpus will lie in a Federal court to review the commitment by a state court of a deputy collector of internal revenue for contempt in refusing to disclose communications made to him by an applicant for a retail liquor dealer's tax stamp. for the purpose of making the office records of the application. Re Huttman, 70 Fed. Rep. 699.

A dispute in regard to the true boundary be tween the state of California and the territory of Arizona cannot be created or determined upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of one convicted and sentenced and imprisoned by the territorial government in 9

rights of action as the corporation had, or as he was clothed with by statute.

Re Schuyler's Steam Tow Boat Co. 136 N. Y. 169, 20 L. R. A. 391; Connecticut River Bkg. Co. v. Rockbridge Co. 73 Fed. Rep. 709; Storm v. Waddell, 2 Sandf. Ch. 491; Re Muehlfeld, 12 App. Div. 492.

an indefinite imprisonment. An order of that character was beyond the power of the court to make.

Ex parte Kearby, 35 Tex. Crim. Rep. 531; Edrington v. Pridham, 65 Tex. 617; Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505 (22: 205); State v. Kaiser, 20 Or. 50, 8 L. R. A. 584.

The court anticipated the default and comac-mitted the appellant in anticipation of the disobedience. The commitment was therefore void. A man cannot be convicted of an offense in anticipation of its being committed.

A complete departure from the prescribed formalities, even though the parties were tually present in court, would devest the court of jurisdiction to render any judgment. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163 (21: 872); Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 1 (30:49); Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574 (28: 262); Edrington v. Pridham, 65 Tex. 617.

The petition in the United States circuit court contained the averment that petitioner had not then and never had possession or control, since the application for the receivership was made, of certain of the notes mentioned in the judgment. This averment was not controverted and it must be taken as true in this court.

Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U. S. 296 (40:432); Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231 (40: 406).

In effect, the appellant was sentenced to prison claimed to stand within the boundaries of such state. Re Chavez, 72 Fed. Rep. 1006. A habeas corpus is properly granted in the case of an army officer arrested for selling liquor on a military reservation in violation of a state statute, involving the question whether such statute is operative within the limits of the reservation. Re Ladd, 74 Fed. Rep. 31.

Persons held for deportation as alien immigrants coming into the country in violation of the contract labor laws will be released on habeas corpus, where the warrant of deportation does not contain their names or any name or names idem sonans, and there is no evidence tending to identify them with any name or names recited in the warrant. United States v. Amor, 30 U. S. App. 302, 68 Fed. Rep. 885, 16 C. C. A. 60.

The circuit court of the United States should not, except in cases of urgency, discharge upon habeas corpus, from custody under warrants issued by a state court, one charged with the offense, committed while president of a national bank, of forgery by making false entries in the books of the bank with intent to defraud, where he is not indicted in any court of the United States for such offense. New York v. Eno, 155 U. S. 89 (39: 80).

The United States district court should not sustain a writ of habeas corpus to discharge a person convicted in a state court, where the validity of the sentence can be tested by the supreme court of the state, or a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States may be applied for. Pepke v. Cronan, 155 U. S. 100 (39: 84).

A dismissal by a state court of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to release a person from a lunatic asylum, although incidentally accompanied by a direction that he should remain in the asylum, will not preclude a Federal court from taking jurisdiction of a subsequent petition for the same purpose. King v. McLean Asylum, 21 U. S. App. 481, 64 Fed. Rep. 331, 12 C. C. A. 145, 26 L. R. A. 784.

A writ of habeas corpus will not be granted to release a prisoner under indictment in the District of Columbia, until his case has reached a final determination in the district court. Re Chapman, 156 U. S. 211 (39:401).

A Federal marshal and his deputies, when arrested under process from a state court because to save their own lives they killed a person whom they were lawfully attempting to arrest under process of a Federal court, will be released by the latter court on habeas corpus. Kelly v. Georgia, 68 Fed. Rep. 652.

The repugnancy of a state statute to the state Constitution does not authorize a writ of ha

Re Chiles, 22 Wall. 157-169 (22: 819823); Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47 N. Y. 40. 46; Rice v. Ehele, 55 N. Y. 518; First Nat. Bank v. Fitzpatrick, 80 Hun, 75; Fromme v. Jarecky, 19 Misc. 483.

The sentence imposed being without authority of law, it was void, and the prisoner was entitled to be discharged on habeas corpus.

Re Bonner, 151 U. S. 242 (38: 149): Re Mills, 135 U. S. 263, 270 (34: 107, 110); People v. Carter, 48 Hun, 166; People, Tueed, v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559, 19 Am. Rep. 211; Com. v. Newton, 1 Grant, Cas. 453; Er parte Degener, 30 Tex. App. 566.

beas corpus from a court of the United States. Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U. S. 272 (39:422). A defect in an indictment under state statutes which are not repugnant to the Federal Constitution does not give jurisdiction to a Federai court to interfere with the execution of the sentence of a state court by writ of habeas corpus. Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. S. 655 (39: 845).

The violation of a provision in a state Constitution, iimiting the time for reprieves, does not make an execution of the death sentence on a governor's warrant and after the time named in the sentence a violation of the prisoner's right to due process of law, or a deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunity granted by the Constitution of the United States, which will authorize interference by habeas corpus from a Federal court. Lambert v. Barrett, 157 U. S. 697 (39:865).

A prisoner is not entitled to discharge upon habeas corpus because he is a negro and citizens of his race were not summoned for qualification as grand jurors, where the state law directs the selection of jurors impartially from the citizens having the requisite qualifications as voters. and does not discriminate against men of the African race. Ex parte Murray, 66 Fed. Rep. 297. A denial in a state court of the right to show that persons of the race of the accused were arbitrarily excluded by the sheriff from the panel of grand and petit juries solely be cause of their race does not defeat the jurisdic tion of that court so as to warrant a writ of habeas corpus. Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U. S. 272 (39: 422).

While the decision of an Inspecting officer touching the right of alien immigrants to land. when adverse to such right, is made final by United States statute, the court upon habeas corpus may determine whether the person excluded is or is not an alien immigrant. Maiola, 67 Fed. Rep. 114.


Habeas corpus will not lle to review proceedings by which an alien immigrant is excluded as likely to become a public charge, as Congress has constitutionally vested in the commissioner of immigration, exclusive of the courts, the final authority to determine whether an alien shall be excluded from admission to this country. United States, Goldstein, v. Rogers, 65 Fed. Rep. 787.

The question whether one extradited from one state to another was a fugitive from justice is not so exclusively a Federal question that a Federal court will discharge him on habeas corpus, where the question has not been raised in the state court. Ex parte Whitten, 67 Fed. Rep. 230.

The order and commitment being void, the appellant was deprived of his liberty by the state without due process of law, and was entitled to his discharge on habeas corpus.

Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339 (25 676); Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370 (26: 567); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (30: 220); Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565 (40: 1075); Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34 (38: 896).

Messrs. Presley K. Ewing and Henry F. Ring, for appellee and defendant in error: In respect to the cause on error to the highest court of the state, this court appears to be without any jurisdictional right of review, since no Federal right was specially set up or claimed in the state court, the general averment of want of due process of law amounting to nothing.

Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U. S. 293 (40: 432); Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231 (40: 406); Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648 (41: 1149); Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462 (35:225).

In respect to the appeal cause, the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to interfere with the state court's process, and in leaving the relator to his remedy in the state courts, and thence on error to this court.

*Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the[102] opinion of the court:

The object of both these proceedings is to obtain the discharge of Thomas Tinsley from imprisonment under an order committing him for contempi, under the following circumstances:

On April 23, 1896, upon a petition for the appointment of a receiver of the Houston Cemetery Company, a corporation of Texas, filed against the corporation, and against Tinsley, who was its president, and the other officers of the corporation, both as such officers and individually, by some in behalf of all, of the owner of lots in the cemetery, the district court of the county of Harris in the state of Texas made an order appointing a receiver of all the property of the corporation, and requiring each of its officers, upon demand of the receiver, to deliver to him any books, papers, money, or property, or vouchers for property, within their control, to which the corporation was entitled. Upon appeal by Tinsley and the other defendants from that order it was affirmed, on May 21, 1896, by the court of civil appeals of the state. 36

S. W. 802.

On February 2, 1897, the receiver made a the district court to commit motion to Tinsley for contempt in refusing to deliver to the receiver of a minute book, promissory notes of the amount of $1.440.50, and a trust fund, amounting to $492.52, belonging to the to show cause was corporation. A rule

Ex parte Koyall, 117 U. S. 241 (29: 868); Re Frederich, 149 U. S. 70 (37: 653); Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183 (36: 934); Re Wood, 140 U. S. 278 (35: 505); Whitten v. Tomlin-issued, in answer to which Tinsley averred son, 160 U. S. 231 (40: 406); Pepke v. Cro- that the notes and the minute book had been nan, 155 U. S. 100 (39: 84). delivered by the corporation to him as colto the corporation, and that he had made, at lateral security for money advanced by him

The claim of denial of due process of law

appears utterly untenable.

Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333 (33: 637); Lennon v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 22

U. S. App. 561, 565, 64 Fed. Rep. 320, 12 C.

C. A. 134.

A jury trial is not necessary to due process of law in a contempt inquiry.

Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County Dist. Ct. 134 U. S. 31 (33: 801); Walker v. Saurinet, 92 U. S. 90 (23: 678).

The claim of denial of equal protection of the law is without merit.

Walston v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578 (32: 544); Missouri P. R. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 209 (32: 109).

Matters of fact adjudicated by the committing court cannot be tried anew on hobeas corpus.

Lennon v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 22 U. S. App. 565, 64 Fed. Rep. 320, 12 C. C. A. 134; Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333 (33: 637).

The claim by relator that he cannot comply as to part of the notes, if true, is conclusively met by his contumacious refusal to comply with the order, as far as he admits his ability to do so, the rule being well settled that until the relator does this, and then seeks in the committing court modification of the order in other respects, he cannot be relieved on habeas corpus.

Re Swan, 150 U. S. 637 (37: 1207).

of the trust fund in securities which he had the expense to himself of $7.70, an investment offered, and was still ready, to deliver to the receiver upon payment of this sum.

On February 6, 1897, the district court, after taking evidence and hearing the parties, adjudged that Tinsley was guilty of a contempt in disobeying its former order by not delivering to the receiver the minute book, notes, and trust fund, *being the property of[103] the corporation and in his control; and ordered him to pay to the sheriff a fine of $100, and to deliver to the receiver the property aforesaid, and to be committed until he should pay the fine and should (being allowed by the sheriff reasonable opportunity to do so if he should so desire) deliver the property to the receiver, or until he should be discharged by further order of the court. And upon the same day he was accordingly committed to the county jail. On March 17, 1897, he presented to the judge of the district court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, setting forth the above proceedings, and alleging that the judgment and commitment for contempt were void, and his detention under them illegal for these reasons: That his claim to the notes, minute book, and trust fund was made in good faith, and that he had the right thereto until deprived thereof by due course of law, and that the proceedings on said motion and said

judgment are not due process of law, and United States of its own writ of habeas that he ought not and cannot be by such corpus was in accordance with the rule, reproceedings imprisoned or compelled to turn peatedly laid down by this court, that the over said property and things, for that there- circuit courts of the United States, while they by he is deprived of a trial by due course of have power to grant writs of habeas corpus law; that the judgment and commitment for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of were uncertain and indefinite, and did not restraint of liberty of any person in custody limit the time of his confinement under them; under the authority of a state in violation that the statute of the state provided that the of the Constitution, a law or a treaty *of the[105] district court should not have the power to United States, yet, except in cases of imprison any person for a longer period than peculiar urgency, ought not to exercise that three days for a contempt; and that the mat- jurisdiction by a discharge of the person in ters set up in said motion and judgment did advance of a final determination of his case not and could not constitute a contempt. in the courts of the state, and, even after This petition for a writ of habeas corpus such final determination, will leave him to was denied by the judge of the district court, his remedy to review it by writ of error from but on April 2, 1897, was granted by the this court. Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241 presiding judge of the court of criminal ap [29: 868]; Lx parte Fonda, 117 U. S. 516 peals of the state of Texas, and a writ of [29: 994]; Le Frederich, 149 U. S. 70 [37: habeas corpus issued, addressed to the sheriff, 653]; Pepke v. Cronan, 155 U S. 100 [39: who, on April 8, returned that he held the 84]; Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. S. 655 prisoner under the commitment for contempt. [39: 845]; Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. After full arguments by both parties, the 231 [40: 406]: Baker v. Grice, 169 U. S. 284 court of criminal appeals entered judgment, [42 L. ed. 748]. This case shows no such cirdismissing the writ of habeas corpus, and re-umstances as to require departure from this manding him to the custody of the sheriff, on u'e.

the ground that the order of commitment It was argued in behalf of Tinsley that the for contempt was within the power of the judgment committing him for contempt was district court, at least so far as concerned the not reviewable by this court; citing the statenotes and minute book, because Tinsley was ment in Chetwood's Case, 165 U. S. 443, 462 [104]a *party to the suit in which the receiver was [41: 782, 788], that "judgments in proceedappointed, and claimed no title, other than ings in contempt are not reviewable here on by way of lien, in the notes and minute book, appeal or error. Hayes v. Fischer, 102 U. S. and such lien, if genuine, would be preserved 121 [26: 95]; Re Debs, 158 U. S. 564,573 [39: to him against the property in the hands of 1092,1095], and 159 U. S. 251 [mem.]" But the receiver. 40 S. W. 306. that statement was made in regard to such On April 26, 1897, Tinsley filed a motion judgments in independent proceedings for conto set aside that judgment and for a rehear- tempt in the circuit courts of the United ing, which, after further written arguments States, and the reason is, as stated in cases rein his behalf, was overruled on May 12, 1897. ferred to in Hayes v. Fischer, above cited, On May 15, 1897, upon a petition alleging that such judgments were considered as judg that by the order of commitment he "is de- ments in criminal cases, in which this court prived of his liberty, and will be, if he sub-had no appellate jurisdiction from those mits to the order, of his property, without due process of law, in violation of the Constitution of the United States," he obtained from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Texas a writ of habeas corpus to the sheriff, which, after a hearing, was by the judgment of that court dismissed and the prisoner remanded to custody; and on January 21, 1898, he apsion in the suit could be had, against a title, pealed from that judgment to this court.

On January 31, 1898, he sued out a writ of error from this court to review the judg. ment of the court of criminal appeals of the state of Texas, and filed in that court an assignment of errors, one of which was that by the proceedings in that court "he was deprived of his liberty, and, if he submitted to the order of the trial court, would be de prived of his property, without due process of law, in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the 5th and 14th Amendments thereto."

The two cases now before us are the ap peal from the judgment of the circuit court of the United States, and the writ of error to the court of criminal appeals of the state of Texas.

The dismissal by the circuit court of the

courts. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38, 42
[5: 391, 392]; New Orleans v. New York Mail
Steamship Company, 20 Wall. 387, 392 [22:
354, 357].

But the appellate jurisdiction of this court
from the state court extends to a final judg-
ment or decree in any suit, civil or criminal,
in the highest court of a state where a deci-

right, privilege, or immunity, specially set up
and claimed under the Constitution or a
treaty or statute of the United States. Rev.
Stat. § 709. Consequently, if the order of
the court of criminal appeals of the state of
Texas, being the highest court of the state
having jurisdiction of the case, dismissing the
writ of habeas corpus issued by one of its
judges, and remanding the prisoner to cus-
tody, denied to him any right specially set
up and claimed by him under the Constitu-
tion, laws, or treaties of the United States, it
is doubtless reviewable by this court on writ
of "error. Newport Light Company v. New [106]
port, 151 U. S. 527, 542 [38: 259,264]; Pepke
v. Cronan, 155 U. S. 100, 101 [39: 84, 85].

We perceive no reason for holding that any
such rights were denied by the judgment of
the court of criminal appeals, in view of the

« ForrigeFortsett »