Ex parte Crouch, Petitioner
| Decision Date | 10 November 1884 |
| Citation | 5 S.Ct. 96,28 L.Ed. 690,112 U.S. 178 |
| Parties | Ex parte CROUCH, Petitioner |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Wm. L. Royall, for motion.
This petition is denied. The general revenue law of Virginia provides that no person shall do business in the state as a 'sample merchant' until he has obtained a license therefor, on payment of a tax of $75, and that if he does he shall pay a fine of $500 for the first offense, and $600 for each succeeding offense. Acts Va. 1884, c. 445, §§ 30, 31, pp. 578, 579. The petitioner has been informed against, and is now held in custody for trial by order of the hustings court of the city of Richmond, for a violation of this law. According to the statements in the petition presented to us, the defense of the petitioner, upon the trial of that case, will be a tender by him, before commencing business, to the proper revenue officer of the state, of the amount of the required license tax, in coupons cut from state bonds, which the state when it issued the bonds agreed should be receivable in payment of all state dues; and a refusal of the officer to accept the tender and give a proper certificate therefor, because by a statute enacted after the issue of the bonds the tax-receiving officers were prohibited from taking the coupons for this tax. The right of the petitioner to a writ of habeas corpus from this court is put in the petition on the ground that the petitioner is detained in custody by the state court in violation of the constitution of the United States, because the statute which prohibits the officer from accepting the coupons impairs the obligation of the contract of the state to receive them, and is on that account inoperative and void, by reason of the provision of the constitution which precludes the states from passing such laws.
It is not claimed that the law which imposes the tax and fixes the penalty for doing business without its payment is unconstitutional. Neither is it pretended that the hustings court has not plenary jurisdiction for the trial of persons charged with a violation of the law. The petitioner is, therefore, in the custody of a state court of competent jurisdiction, and held for trial upon an information for violating a criminal statute of the state. He seeks to be discharged by habeas corpus, not because, if guilty of the charge which has been made against him the court is without jurisdiction to hold him for trial and to convict and sentence him, but because, as he alleges, he has a valid defense to the charge, which grows out of a provision in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Davenport
...S.Ct. 738, 35 L.Ed. 505 (1891) ; Ex parte Bigelow , 113 U.S. 328, 330–331, 5 S.Ct. 542, 28 L.Ed. 1005 (1885) ; Ex parte Crouch , 112 U.S. 178, 180, 5 S.Ct. 96, 28 L.Ed. 690 (1884) ; Ex parte Parks , 93 U.S. 18, 21, 23 L.Ed. 787 (1876) ; 1 H. Black, Law of Judgments §§ 170, 254 (2d ed. 1902)......
-
State v. Huffman
...cases were enacted in 1864. Ex parte Tice was decided in 1897. From it we quote: '* * * In a note to Ex parte Crouch, 20 Cent.Law J. 169 [112 U.S. 178, 5 S.Ct. 96, 28 L.Ed. 690], it is said: 'The rule is that if the error by reason of which it is sought to overthrow the judgment is not of s......
-
Commonwealth v. Millen
... ... 620 ... Compare Lester v. State, 91 Wis. 249, 64 N.W. 850, ... and Ex parte Bryan, 44 Ala. 402, in which cases a change of ... venue was ordered in the absence of both the ... It was ... alleged in substance in each petition that the petitioner was ... denied his equal civil rights as a citizen of the United ... States (1) because the ... writ of habeas corpus (now U.S. Rev. St. § 751 [28 USCA § ... 451]. See Ex parte Crouch, 112 U.S. 178, 180, 5 S.Ct. 96, 28 ... L.Ed. 690; Virginia v. Paul, 148 U.S. 107, 123, 124, ... ...
-
Tyndall v. Gunter
...where the sentencing court had jurisdiction, as that term was understood under the common law. See, e.g., Ex parte Crouch, 112 U.S. 177, 180, 5 S.Ct. 96, 96-97, 28 L.Ed. 690 (1884); Duncan v. McCall, 139 U.S. 449, 454, 11 S.Ct. 573, 574, 35 L.Ed. 219 (1890). Thus, because the writ was limit......