Ex parte Lothrop. Filed
Decision Date | 26 April 1886 |
Citation | 118 U.S. 113,30 L.Ed. 108,6 S.Ct. 984 |
Parties | Ex parte LOTHROP. Filed |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
A. X. Parker, for petitioner.
Thos. Mitchell, for respondent.
The petitioner is detained in the territorial prison of Arizona upon a warrant of commitment issued by the county court of Cochise county, under a sentence of imprisonment on a conviction of the crime of grand larceny, and the only question presented by his petition is whether the territorial legislature of Arizona had authority to create and establish that court. There is no question of the jurisdiction of the court to try the petitioner for the offense of which he was convicted if the court itself was rightfully created.
The provisions of the Revised Statutes on which the question depends are these:
Sec. 1846. The legislative power in each territory shall be vested in the governor and a legislative assembly. The legislative assembly shall consist of a council and house of representatives.'
Such was the organic law of Arizona, as shown by the Revised Statutes, on the twelfth of March, 1885, when the act was passed by the legislative assembly of the territory, and approved by the governor, 'to create and establish a county court in the county of Cochise.' Section 4 of this act is as follows:
The judge of the court was to be elected by the qualified electors of the county, and to hold his office for four years. He was to reside at the county-seat, and could not be absent from the county more than 30 days in each calendar year.
The precise question for determination is whether such a court, with such a jurisdiction, is an 'inferior court,' within the meaning of section 1908. It has 'equal concurrent common-law, equitable, and statutory jurisdiction with the district courts in all cases,' and 'original concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts * * * in all criminal cases amounting to felony, and cases of misdemeanor not otherwise provided for.' It is therefore a court of substantially equal dignity and importance with the district court, so far as Cochise county is concerned; but it is 'inferior' to the supreme court, because that court has power to review its judgments and decrees on appeal. As every territory is, by the Revised Statutes, to be divided into districts, and a district court is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Knox v. Speakes
... ... Winn et al., 113 Mo. 155, 20 S.W. 21; Kirkwood v ... Washington County, 52 P. 568; Ex parte Lothrop, 6 S.Ct ... 984, 118 U.S. 113, 30 L.Ed. 108. [144 Miss. 129] ... The ... a higher court ... II. The ... demurrer filed in this cause alleges that chapter 131, Laws ... of 1926, creating the county court system is ... ...
-
History Co. v. Dougherty
... ... United States, in the case of Lothrop, 118 U.S. 113, ... 6 S.Ct. 984, practically holds that the district courts ... created by title ... ...
-
Higgins v. Tax Assessors of Pawtucket
...v. Noel, 2 Ark. 449; Clepper v. State, 4 Tex. 242; Amer. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. (26 U. S.) 511, 7 L. Ed. 242; Ex Parte Lothrop, 118 U. S. 113, 6 Sup. Ct 984, 30 L. Ed. 108. In the case at bar it is urged by counsel for relator that we have in this act an instance of cotemporaneous const......
-
State of South Carolina ex rel. Tillman v. Coosaw Min. Co.
... ... SIMONTON, ... The ... summons and complaint in this case were filed in the office ... of the clerk of Beaufort county in South Carolina on 23d ... March, 1891. The ... necessarily require the hearing of both sides, not the ex ... parte statement of one side. So, under the act of 1789, in ... all cases of removal the petition for ... ...