In re Terry
Decision Date | 12 November 1888 |
Citation | 128 U.S. 289,32 L.Ed. 405,9 S.Ct. 77 |
Parties | In re TERRY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 289-290 intentionally omitted] Upon Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
S. Shellabarger and J. M. Wilson, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 291-297 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, dilivered the opinion of the court.
This is an original application to this court for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner, David S. Terry, alleges that he is unlawfully imprisoned, under an order of the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of California, in the jail of Alameda county, in that state. That order is made a part of his application, and is as follows:
'In the Circuit Court of the United States of America for the Northern District of California.
'Whereas, on this 3d day of September, 1888, in open court, and in the presence of the judges thereof, to-wit, Hon. STEPHEN J. FIELD, Circuit Justice, presiding; Hon. LORENZO SAWYER, Circuit Judge; and Hon. GEORGE M. SABIN, District Judge, during the session of said court, and while said court was engaged in its regular business, hearing and determining causes pending before it, one Sarah Althea Terry was guilty of misbehavior in the presence and hearing of said court; and whereas, said court thereupon duly and lawfully ordered the United States marshal, J. C. Franks, who was then present, to remove the said Sarah Althea Terry from the court-room; and whereas, the said United States marshal then and there attempted to enforce said order, and then and there was resisted by one David S. Terry, an attorney of this court, who, while the said marshal was attempting to execute said order in the presence of the court, assaulted the said United States marshal, and then and there beat him, the said marshal, and then and there wrongfully and unlawfully assaulted said marshal with a deadly weapon, with intent to obstruct the administration of justice, and to resist such United States marshal and the execution of the said order; and whereas, the said David S. Terry was guilty of a contempt of this court, by misbehavior in its presence, and by a forcible resistence in the presence of the court to a lawful order thereof, in the manner aforesaid: Now, therefore, be it ordered and adjudged by this court that the said David S. Terry, by reason of said acts, was and is guilty of contempt of the authority of this court, committed in its presence on this 3d day of September, 1888; and it is further ordered that the said David S. Terry be punished for said contempt by imprisonment for the term of six months; and it is further ordered that this judgment be executed by imprisonment of the said David S. Terry in the county jail of the county of Alameda, in the state of California, until the further order of this court, but not to exceed said term of six months; and it is further ordered that a certified copy of this order, under the seal of the court, be process and warrant of executing this order.'
The petition alleges that 'said order was made by said court in the absence of your petitioner, and without his having any notice of the intention of said court to take any proceeding whatever in relation to the matters referred to in said order, and without giving your petitioner any opportunity whatever of being heard in defense of the charges therein made against him.'
The petition proceeds:
'And your petitioner further showeth that on the 12th day of September, 1888, he addressed to the said circuit court a petition, duly verified by his oath, in the words and figures following, to-wit:
The petitioner states that on the 17th of September, 1888, the circuit court 'declined and refused to grant your petitioner the relief prayed for, or any other relief.'1 He also insists, in his petition, that the 'circuit court had no jurisdiction of his person at the time it made the order hereinbefore set forth, and possessed no lawful power to make said order, and that he was entitled to be relieved from his said imprisonment upon the filing of the petition aforesaid, and that said order of said court is other wise illegal and unwarranted by the law of the land.' That he may be relieved of said detention and imprisonment, he prays that he may be forthwith brought before this court upon writ of habeas corpus, to do, submit to, and receive what the law may require. The above presents that entire case made by the application before us.
There can be no dispute either as to the power or duty of this court in cases of this character. Its power to issue a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of the restraint of the liberty of the person in whose behalf the writ is asked, is expressly conferred by statute, and extends to the cases, among others, of prisoners in jail under or by color of the authority of the United States, and of persons who are in custody in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States. Rev. St. §§ 751-753. Its general duty in such cases is also prescribed by statute. Upon complaint in writing, signed by and verified by the oath of the person for whose relief it is intended, setting forth the facts concerning the detention of the party restrained, in whose custody he is detained, and by virtue of what claim or authority, if known, it is the duty of the court to 'forthwith award a writ of Habeas corpus, unless it appears from the petition itself that the party is not entitled thereto.' Id. §§ 754, 755. The writ need not, therefore, be awarded, if it appear upon the showing made by the petitioner that, if brought into court, and the cause of his commitment inquired into, he would be remanded to prison. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38, 45; Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 201; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 11. It is proper in this connection to say that since the passage of the act of March 3, 1885, c. 353, (23 St. 437,) amending- section 764 of the Revised Statutes so as to give this court jurisdiction, upon appeal, to review the final decisions of the circuit courts of the United States in cases of habeas corpus, when the petitioner alleges that he is restrained of his liberty in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States, the right to the writ, upon original application to this court, is not, in every case, an absolute one. In Wales v. Whitney, 114 U. S. 564, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1050, it appears that a direct application to this court for the writ, after a decision adverse to the petitioner in the supreme court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gilman v. Com., Record No. 1928-04-3.
...liable to abuse, is absolutely essential to the protection of the courts in the discharge of their functions. Ex Parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 313, 9 S.Ct. 77, 83, 32 L.Ed. 405 (1888). This power to convict and punish summarily nevertheless "accords due process of law." Fisher v. Pace, 336 U.S......
-
Commonwealth v. McKenty
... ... 152 (41 So. 945) ... A party ... is entitled to a habeas corpus not merely where the court is ... without jurisdiction of the cause, but where it has no ... constitutional authority or power to condemn the prisoner: ... In re Neilsen, 131 U.S. 176 (9 S.Ct. 672); In re ... Terry, 128 U.S. 289 (9 S.Ct. 77); In re Reed, ... 100 U.S. 13; In re Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (4 S.Ct ... 152); In re Bonner, 151 U.S. 242 (14 S.Ct. 323); ... In re Fong Yim, 134 F. 938; Crooms v ... Schad, 51 Fla. 168 (40 So. 497); Alvarez v ... State, 50 Fla. 24 (39 So. 481); In re Harrison, ... ...
-
Merchants' Stock & Grain Co. v. Board of Trade of City of Chicago
...a criminal actual contempt the defendant may without a waiver and without his consent be sentenced in his absence. Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 9 Sup.Ct. 77, 32 L.Ed. 405; Middlebrook v. State, 43 Conn. 257, 21 Am.Rep. Sixth. An act which is a contempt of court and also a crime may be puni......
-
Ex parte Quirin. Ex parte Haupt. Ex parte Kerling. Ex parte Burger. Ex parte Heinck. Ex parte Thiel. Ex parte Neubauer. United States ex rel. Quirin v. Cox, Brig. Gen., U.S.a., Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, and 6 other cases. Nos. — 8212 1942
...dispensed with in the federal courts in those cases in which they could be tried without a jury at common law. Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 302, 304, 9 S.Ct. 77, 79, 32 L.Ed. 405; Savin, Petitioner, 131 U.S. 267, 277, 9 S.Ct. 699, 701, 33 L.Ed. 150; In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 594—596, 15 S.......
-
A Practice Commentary To Judiciary Law Article 19
...People ex rel Negus, 90 N.Y. at 406. [18] See generally People ex rel Sherwin v. Mead, 92 N.Y. 415, 419-420 (1883). [19] Ex pane Terry, 128 U.S. 289 [20] See United States v. Hall, 176 F.2d 163 (2d Cir. 1949). [21] See Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1 (1952). [22] See Offutt v. United St......
-
Summary Contempt Power in the Military: A Proposal to Amend Article 48, UCMJ
...W. SCOTT, JR., CRIMINAL LAW § 1.7 at 43, n.54 (2d ed. 1986) (citing Anonymous, 73 Eng. Rep. 416 (1631)). 15. Id. 16. Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289 (1888); Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204, 227 (1821) ("Courts of justice are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their very creatio......
-
THE GREAT WRIT AND FEDERAL COURTS: JUDGE WOOD'S SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM.
...the petitioners' innocence or guilt but solely the question whether their constitutional rights have been preserved."); Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 305 (1888) ("As the writ of habeas corpus does not perform the office of a writ of error or an appeal, [the facts establishing guilt] cannot ......
-
Summary Contempt and Due Process: England, 1631, California, 1888
...of misbehavior in the presence and hearing of said court," and a marshal was ordered to remove her from the courtroom. (Ex Parte (1888) 128 U.S. 289.) The marshal "was resisted by one David S. Terry, an attorney of this court, who, while the said marshal was attempting to execute said order......