Cuyler v. Atlantic & N.C.R. Co.
Decision Date | 23 July 1904 |
Parties | CUYLER v. ATLANTIC & N.C.R. CO. In re DANIELS. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
James H. Pou, Thos. J. Jarvis, T. T. Gray, and R. W. Winston, for petitioner.
Harry Skinner, opposed.
In order to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in the petition upon which the writ of habeas corpus was issued, it is necessary to determine two questions: (1) Did the court which imposed the sentence in this case have jurisdiction? (2) Does this court have jurisdiction to hear and determine this case on a writ of habeas corpus?
The section under which the court based its action is 725 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp.St. 1901, p. 583), which reads as follows:
'The said courts shall have power to impose and administer all necessary oaths, and to punish, by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, contempts of their authority provided, that such power to punish contempts shall not be construed to extend to any cases except the misbehavior of any person in their presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, the misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their official transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any such officer, or by any part, juror witness, or other person, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the said courts.'
This act not only limits the power of the court, but employs language which clearly defines the power of the courts with respect to summary punishment for contempt, and applies to all courts, except perhaps the Supreme Court. It applies to the District and Circuit Courts, inasmuch as they were created by act of Congress, their powers and duties being granted by the act creating them and subsequent acts enlarging and diminishing their jurisdiction. The act of 1831 is a chart by which these courts are to be guided in cases where summary punishment for contempt is to be inflicted.
Justice Field, in Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall.,at page 510, 22 L.Ed. 205, in referring to the act of 1831, says:
In Kent's Commentaries, volume 1, note on page 340, at bottom, it is said, in speaking of the act of 1831:
'That act had withdrawn from the courts of the United States the common-law power to protect their suitors, officers, witnesses, and themselves against the libels of the press, however atrocious, and though published and circulated pending the very trial of the cause.'
In the Case of Savin, U.S. 274, 9 Sup.Ct. 701, 33 L.Ed. 150, Justice Harlan, among other things, says:
In Ex parte Poulston, 19 Fed.Cas.,on page 1206 (No. 11,350), Baldwin, J., says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In Re Charles A. Thatcher
... ... 47; Ex ... parte Green, 46 Tex. [80 Ohio St. 652] Crim. Rep., 576; ... Cuyler v. Atlantic, etc., 131 F. 95; Ex parte Biggs, 64 N ... The ... right to ... ...
-
United States v. Toledo Newspaper Co.
...In some measure, also, it is the view of the court in Re May (D.C.) 1 Fed. 737, 743; Morse v. Montana Ore Co. (C.C.) 105 F. 337; and Cuyler v. A. & N.C.R. (In Daniels) 131 F. 95, a decision by the District Court in the Eastern District of North Carolina. We are confident that it may be made......
-
Ex parte Craig, 308.
... ... necessary to the commitment exist ... Cuyler ... v. Atlantic, etc., Co. (In re Daniels) 131 F. 95, though ... only a decision of a Circuit ... ...
-
State ex rel. Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. Coleman
... ... 505, 22 L.Ed. 205; Ex ... parte Poulson, 19 Fed. Cas. 1205; Cuyler v. Atlantic & N ... C. Ry. Co., 131 F. 95; Rutherford v. Holmes, 5 ... Hun, 317, affd. 66 ... ...