Peonage Cases’s Empirical Analysis
123 F. 671 · 1903
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1991
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Royall · Boardman v. Toffey · Edward Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · South & North Alabama Railroad v. Morris · Holden v. James
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The magistrate or other judicial officer who makes an error of judgment In the exercise of his jurisdiction — exceeds his authority in the sentence imposed —is not guilty of' the offense of causing the party to be held in a condition of peonage/or involuntary servitude, because in consequence of such sentence the doLendant is put and kept, at hard labor. There must be much more than that to involve the officer in criminal responsibility. For reasons of imperative public policy, a judicial officer is not responsible, civilly, for mistakes or errors of judgment; nor is he indictable or impeachable for such. Tne statutes against peonage and involuntary servitude are not intended to punish officers where persons are convicted or sentenced under unconstitutional laws, or through errors or mistakes in the administration of constitutional laws, and are held, under sentence thereon, to labor by state officers, or hired, according to the requirements of law to others, who restrain the convict and compel him to perform labor against his will. Imprisonment under an unconstitutional law is of course unlawful, and civil responsibilities may attach, under certain conditions, to other than judicial officers; but a person who does no more than to bring the machinery of the law into play from proper motives, or sits in judgment, or executes the sentence, is not criminally responsible, under the statutes, for holding or causing the party to he held to ‘a. condition of peonage* or involuntary ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is hereby declared to be unlawful, and the same is hereby abolished and forever prohibited in the Territory of New Mexico, or in any other Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of the Territory of New Mexico, or of any other Territory or State of the United States, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, be, and the same are hereby, declared null and void; and any person or persons who shall hold, arrest, or return, or cause to be held, arrested, or returned, or in any manner aid in the arrest or return of any person or persons to a condition of peonage, shall, upon conviction, be punished by fine not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not less than one nor more than five years, or both, at the discretion of the court.” The first part of the statute is now 8 U. S. C. § 56 (R. S. § 1990) and the criminal provision is § 269 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S. C. §444 (R. S. §5526).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pollock v. Williams““On tbe other hand, where a magistrate or other judicial officer corruptly exercises his functions in order that a citizen may he convicted unlawfully and sentenced, so that a particular person, with whom he has an understanding, express or implied by becoming the surety oh confession of judgment, may get the custody of the convict, or make a profit out of a contract to ibe made between the convict and his surety, in consequence of which the convict is detained and put to hard labor, such magistrate or other judicial officer cannot escape criminal responsibility to the United States for the conspiracy, and its natural and designed result, in the holding of a citizen in a condition of peonage or involuntary servitude, because the judicial officer has taken the precaution to veil his wrong in the form of an official act””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.