Farnsworth v. Territory of Montana
Decision Date | 14 January 1889 |
Citation | 9 S.Ct. 253,32 L.Ed. 616,129 U.S. 104 |
Parties | FARNSWORTH v. TERRITORY OF MONTANA |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is a writ of error to the supreme court of the territory of Montana, in a criminal case, brought by George W. Farnsworth, who was proceeded against by an information in the probate court in and for Gallatin county, in that territory, for the crime of misdemeanor, in having, in violation of a statute, as a commercial traveler, offered for sale in that territory merchandise to be delivered at a future time, without first having obtained a license. He was arrested, and pleaded not guilty, and was tried by the court; no jury having been asked for or demanded. The court found him guilty, and its judgment was that he pay a fine of $50, and costs of the prosecution, $17.70, and stand committed until such fine and costs should be paid. He took an appeal to the district court for the county of Gallatin, and the case was tried by that court, a jury being expressly waived, and it found him guilty, and sentenced him to pay a fine of $50 and all costs of prosecution. He then took an appeal to the supreme court of the territory. That court affirmed the judgment of the district court, in January, 1885. 5 Mont. 303, 324, 5 Pac. Rep. 869, 878. To review that judgment the defendant has brought the case to this court by a writ of error.
James Lowndes, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 105-109 intentionally omitted]
It is very clear that this is a criminal case; and the question arises whether there is any authority for the review by this court of the decision of the supreme court of the territory of Montana in a criminal case. We have been furnished with a brief on this subject by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, but we are unable to find any statutory authority for the jurisdiction of this court in this case. Section 702 of the Revised Statutes provides as follows: Section 1909 of the Revised Statutes provides that writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of the supreme court of any one of eight named territories, of which Montana is one, 'shall be allowed to the supreme court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the circuit courts of the United States, where the value of the property or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath of either party, or of other competent witnesses, exceeds one thousand dollars, except that a writ of error or appeal shall be allowed to the supreme court of the United States * * * upon writs of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom.' Section 1911 of the Revised Statutes relates exclusively to writs of error and appeals from Washington Territory. Section 709 applies only to a writ of error to review a final judgment or decree in a suit in the highest court of a state.
In Snow v. U. S. 118 U. S. 346, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1059, these sections (702, 709, 1909, and 1911) were considered in reference to their application to a criminal case from the territory of Utah, other than a capital case, or a case of bigamy or polygamy, writs of error in which were provided for by section 3 of the act of June 23, 1874, (18 St. 253;) and the reasons there given why they did not apply to or cover such a criminal case show that they do not apply to or cover a criminal case from the territory of Montana. Reference is made by the plaintiff in error to the case of Watts v. Territory of Washington, 91 U. S. 580, which was a criminal case from the territory of Washington, in which it did not appear that the constitution, or any statute or treaty of the United States, had been brought in question. The jurisdiction of this court in the case was questioned, as not being embraced by the last clause of section 702 of the Revised Statutes, before quoted. This court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction; saying that it could only review the final judgments of the supreme court of the territory of Washington in criminal cases, when the constitution or a statute or treaty of the United States was drawn in question. The decision in the case did not uphold the jurisdiction of this court in a criminal case where the constitution or a statute or treaty of the United States was drawn in question, and the language of the court in that respect was obiter dictum.
It is sought, however, to uphold the jurisdiction in this case under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1885, (23 St. 443,) which reads as follows: In Snow v. U. S., supra, (page 351,) it was held that the first section of that statute applied solely to judgments or decrees in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Thayer
...Co., 32 Ill. App. 417; McAllister v. Road Co., 10 N. Y. 353; U. S. v. Nourse, 6 Pet. 495, 8 L. Ed. 467; Farnsworth v. Territory of Montana, 129 U. S. 104, 9 Sup. Ct. 253, 32 L. Ed. 616; McKane v. Dunston, 153 U. S. 687, 14 Ct. 913, 38 L. Ed. 867; Bryson v. McCreary, 102 Ind. 1, 1 N. E. 55; ......
-
Palmore v. United States 8212 11
...to treat the District of Columbia Code as a state statute for the purposes of § 1257(2). Cf. Farnsworth v. Territory of Montana, 129 U.S. 104, 112—114, 9 S.Ct. 253, 254 255, 32 L.Ed. 616 (1889). Palmore relies on Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627 (1922), where a......
-
Grabill Corp., Matter of
... ... at 395 n. 5, 93 S.Ct. at 1675 n. 5 (quoting Farnsworth v. Montana, 129 U.S. 104, 113, 9 S.Ct. 253, 32 ... Page 1156 ... L.Ed. 616 (1889)). Here, ... ...
-
U.S. v. Mills, s. 90-3007
...expressly, and not left the matter to mere implication 5 5. An express provision "would have been easy," Farnsworth v. Montana, 129 U.S. 104, 113, 9 S.Ct. 253, 255, 32 L.Ed. 616 (1889), as demonstrated by specific provisions in the United States Code concerning the District of Palmore v. Un......