Ex parte Tom Tong, Petitioner
| Decision Date | 07 May 1883 |
| Citation | 2 S.Ct. 871,108 U.S. 556,27 L.Ed. 826 |
| Parties | Ex parte TOM TONG, Petitioner |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from page 556 intentionally omitted]
[Statement of Case from pages 556-557 intentionally omitted] S. F. Phillips, Thos. Simons, andHall McAllister, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 557 intentionally omitted] L. D. Latimer, in opposition.
This is a writ of habeas c
orpus sued out of the circuit court of the United States for the district of California by the petitioner, Tom Tong, a subject of the emperor of China, for the purpose of an inquiry into the legality of his detention by the chief of police of the city and county of San Francisco for an alleged violation of an order or ordinance of the board of supervisors of such city and county regulating the licensing, etc., of public laundries, and the case comes here, before judgment below, on a certificate of division of opinion between the judges holding the court as to certain questions which arose at the hearing. The allegation in the petition is that the order, for the violation of which the petitioner is held, is in contravention of the constitution of the United States and of a treaty between the United States and the emperor of China.
A question which meets us at the outset is whether we have jurisdiction, and that depends on whether the proceeding is to be treated as civil or criminal. Section 650 of the Revised Statutes provides that whenever, in any civil suit or proceeding in a circuit court, there occurs a difference of opinion between the judges holding the court as to any matter to be decided, ruled, or ordered, the opinion of the presiding judge shall prevail and be considered the opinion of the court for the time being; and section 652, that when final judgment or decree is rendered, the points of disagreement shall be certified and entered of record under the direction of the judges. That being done, the judgment or decree may, under the provisions of section 693, be brought here for review by writ of error or appeal, as the case may be. By section 951 it is provided that whenever any question occurs on the trial or hearing of any criminal proceeding before a circuit court and the judges are divided in opinion, the point on which they disagree shall, during the same term, upon the request of either party, or of their counsel, be stated under the direction of the judges, and certified under the seal of the court to this court at its next session. It follows, from these provisions of the statutes, that, if this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois
...corpus is a civil proceeding. Fisher v. Baker, 203 U.S. 174, 181, 27 S.Ct. 135, 136, 51 L.Ed. 142 (1906); Ex parte Tom Tong, 108 U.S. 556, 2 S.Ct. 871, 27 L.Ed. 826 (1883); see Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S 415, 418 n. 7, 79 S.Ct. 451, 453, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959). Perhaps in recognition of......
-
Commonwealth ex rel. Master v. Baldi
... ... Commonwealth's right to appeal is not applicable. Ex ... parte Tom Tong , 108 U.S. 556, 2 S.Ct. 871, 27 L.Ed. 826; ... People ex rel. Ross v. Ragen , 391 Ill ... ...
-
Boudin v. Thomas
...a "criminal" action, which is intended to punish and requires various constitutional guarantees. See, e.g., Ex parte Tong, 108 U.S. 556, 559, 2 S.Ct. 871, 872, 27 L.Ed. 826 (1883) (habeas is a civil proceeding because "[p]roceedings to enforce civil rights are civil proceedings, and proceed......
-
United State v. Morgan
...United States v. Kerschman, 7 Cir., 201 F.2d 682. See also cases collected in 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law § 1606(a). 8. Ex parte Tom Tong, 108 U.S. 556, 2 S.Ct. 871, 27 L.Ed. 826. 9. 'Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms......
-
Pronouncements of the U.s. Supreme Court Relating to the Criminal Law Field: 1977-1978
...reversed. 1596 The Court held that habeas corpus is a civil proceeding. Fisher v. Baker, 203 U.S. 174, 181 (1906); Ex parte Tom Tong, 108 U.S. 556 (1889). As such, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply, except for what is excluded under Rule 81(a)(2). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, an appeal ......
-
CHAPTER 11 LITIGATING QUESTIONS OF FACT
.... is not a proceeding in that prosecution. On the contrary, it is a new suit brought by him to enforce a civil right." Ex parte Tom Tong, 108 U.S. 556, 559-60 (1883). Any possible doubt about this point has been removed by the statutory procedure Congress has provided for the disposition of......