Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

79 F.2d 486

Docket No. 3028.

Comerford v. Hogsett

First Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Oct. 16, 1935.

First Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1935-10-16

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1935

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Johnson v. Tennessee · Ex parte Patrick · Herman Bilik v. Christopher Strassheim

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1935-10-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1John G. Comerford, pro. se.

¶2James J. Bacigalupo, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Paul A. Dever, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before BINGHAM and MORTON, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS, District Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is an appeal to this court from an order of the federal District Court for Massachusetts of December 3,. 1934, dismissing the appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It appears that the appellant is confined in the state prison at Charlestown, Mass., serving a sentence, and is there held under process of the state court. The appeal is not accompanied by a certificate of probable cause as now required to give this court jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal. USCA, title 28, § 466 (43 Stat. 940, § 6 (d), Act of March 10, 1908, c. 76 (35 Stat. 40). In this situation the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Bilik v. Strassheim, 212 U. S. 551, 29 S. Ct. 684, 53 L. Ed. 649; Ex parte Patrick, 212 U. S. 555, 29 S. Ct. 686, 53 L. Ed. 650; In re Graves (C. C. A.) 270 F. 181, 187.

¶6The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

/79/f2d/486 · .json · Public domain