Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Ex Parte Fonda
Ex Parte Fonda, 117 U.S. 516 (1886)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1886-03-29
- Topic
- general
.Mn. -Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. ■This motion is denied on the authority of Ex parte Royall, ante 241. No reason is suggested why the Supreme Court of the State may not review the judgment of the Circuit Court of the county upon the question which is raised as to the applica-tidn of the statute, under which the. conviction has been had, to embezzlements by -the servants and clerks 6f national banks,- . nor why it should not be permitted to do, so without interfer- . ence by the courts of the United States. The question appears \to be one'which, if properly presented by the record, may be reviewed in this court after a decision py the Supreme Court adverse to the petitioner. The case as made by the motion papers is not one which, under the principles settled in RoyalVs Oase, requires this court to act in advance of the orderly course of proceeding for a review of-the judgment by writ of error. : Motion denied. .
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ex Parte Fonda. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 46 opinions
Headnotes
- Habeas Corpus — Federal Interference with State Criminal Proceedings A federal court should deny leave to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person convicted in a state court where the petition shows no reason why the judgment of conviction may not be reviewed by the state's supreme court, or why that court should not be permitted to do so without interference by the courts of the United States. 117 U.S. at 517-518
- Habeas Corpus — Exhaustion of State Remedies Where a question of federal law is properly presented by the record of a state criminal proceeding, it may be reviewed in the Supreme Court of the United States after a decision by the state's highest court adverse to the petitioner; consequently, a habeas corpus case is not one requiring a federal court to act in advance of the orderly course of proceeding for review of the judgment by writ of error. 117 U.S. at 518
EX PARTE FONDA,117 U.S. 516(1886)
6 S.Ct. 848
EX PARTE FONDA.
ORIGINAL.
Submitted March 22, 1886.
Decided April 5, 1886.
"First. That on the 10th day of November, 1885, your petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment in the State prison at Jackson, Michigan, by the Circuit Court of St. Joseph County in that State, for the term and period of three years and six months from and including the day aforesaid, as will appear from a copy of said sentence hereto attached.
"Second. That the conviction of your petitioner, upon which said sentence was based, was procured in said court on the 31st day of October, 1885, as will appear from a copy of the verdict of the jury then and there rendered, and hereto attached.
"Third. That your petitioner was tried on the day last aforesaid, for the commission of the several offences charged against him in and by a certain information, a copy of which is hereto attached.
"Fourth. Your petitioner further shows that said conviction and sentence were had and imposed upon the 3d and 4th counts of said information, exclusively, as will appear by reference to the verdict hereto attached.
"Fifth. That in pursuance of the execution of said sentence, your petitioner is now confined in said State prison, and is restrained of his liberty illegally, forcibly and against his will by one Hiram F. Hatch, the warden and keeper thereof.
"Sixth. That your petitioner was employed by the Farmers' National Bank of Constantine in the capacity of clerk, and by virtue of said employment acted as the general manager of the affairs of said bank, and had full control and the custody of its funds during the whole period covered by the dates upon which the alleged embezzlements are charged to have been committed in the information hereto attached.
"Seventh. Your petitioner is advised, and therefore alleges that said imprisonment, confinement and detention are unwarranted and illegal in this:
"I. Because your petitioner is convicted, sentenced and imprisoned contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and the laws of Congress.
"II. Because the acts described and charged in the third andPage 518fourth counts of the information (being embezzlement of the funds and property of a National Bank by a clerk therein) are cognizable by the federal courts, and the jurisdiction to try your petitioner and to punish said crime is vested exclusively in said courts; the action of said State court is in violation of Article I., Section 8, Parts 5 and 17 of the Constitution of the United States; also of Section 711, Part 1, of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and Section 5209 of said statutes, which provides a punishment for the crime of which your petitioner stands convicted.
"III. Because he was held to answer for, and was convicted of an infamous crime as charged in the third and fourth counts of said information without presentment or indictment by a grand jury."