Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

120 U.S. 782

Harding

Supreme Court of the United States

March 21, 1887.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1887-03-21

ORIGINAL. The following motion ivas- made in this case: Now comes the petitioner, by- his counsel, and.-moves this ' honorable court for leave to file petition praying for the issue of the writ of habeas corpus and for certiorari, and submits thereon the accompanying brief.

Relies on Wilson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 8–0 · Decided 1887-03-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 119 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2001 · most notably Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923), Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987)

31 federal appellate · 8 district · 18 state decisions

2001887189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Joseph K. Toole, A. B. Browne, and A. T. Britton, for petitioner.

WAITE, C. J.

¶1

This motion is denied. This court has no jurisdiction for the discharge on habeas corpus of a person imprisoned under the sentence of a territorial court in a criminal case, unless the sentence exceeds the jurisdiction of that court, or there is no authority to hold him under the sentence. Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 420, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 935, and the cases there cited. The fact that a law of the United States to sit on a grand jury, and tention to become a citizen of the United States to sit on a grant jury, and that an alien did in fact sit on the jury that found the indictment against this petitioner, did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction for his trial under the indictment. The objection, if it be one, goes only to the regularity of the proceedings, not to the jurisdiction of the court. The same is true of the allegation in the petition that the petitioner was denied his right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. For such errors or irregularities, if they exist, a judgment is not void, and a writ of habeas corpus gives this court no authority for their correction.

/120/us/782 · .json · Public domain