Foster, Co v. State Johnston

Citation112 U.S. 201,28 L.Ed. 629,5 S.Ct. 8
PartiesFOSTER, CO. Atty., etc., v. STATE ex rel JOHNSTON, Atty. Gen
Decision Date27 October 1884
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

[Syllabus intentionally omitted]

W. Hallett Phillips, for motion.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 202-203 intentionally omitted] A. L. Williams, against motion.

WAITE, C. J.

The showing under this rule presents the following facts: The supreme court of Kansas rendered a judgment on the first of April, 1884, removing Foster, the plaintiff in error, from the office of county attorney of Saline county. A statute of the state makes it the duty of the judge of the district court of a county to fill the office of county attorney when a vacancy exists. A writ of error from this court for the reversal of the judgment of the supreme court was duly allowed in Washington on the fifth of April, and a supersedeas bond approved, and a citation signed. Notice of these facts was telegraphed on the same day, by the counsel of Foster in Washington, to his counsel in Kansas. On the 7th, the counsel in Kansas called on the judge of the district court of the county and exhibited to him the telegram, and notified him of what had been done in Washington. After this, and a little before 12 o'clock of the night of the 7th, the judge appointed Joseph Moore to the office in place of Foster. The bond of Moore, which had been executed on the 7th, and then approved by the clerk of the county, was accepted by the county commissioners on the eighth of April, and Moore thereupon assumed to discharge the duties of his office. Before this appointment was made, an authenticated copy of the record of the supreme court removing Foster from the office was presented to the judge. On the same day, the 8th, the writ of error and supersedeas bond arrived from Washington and were duly lodged in the office of the clerk of the supreme court of the state. At the next term of the district court, which began on the twelfth of May, Moore appeared and acted as county attorney, the judge ruling that he, and not Foster, was properly in office. On the twenty-sixth of May a rule was granted by one of the justices of this court requiring Moore to appear here on the second day of the present term, and show cause why he should not be attached for contempt in violating the supersedeas. There is no dispute about the facts, and the simple question is whether they make out a case of contempt on the part of Moore. We have no hesitation in saying they do not. It was decided in Board Com'rs v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
111 cases
  • State v. Bixman
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1901
    ...are within the scope of that authority." See, also, Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25, 24 L. Ed. 989; Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201, 5 Sup. Ct. 897, 28 L. Ed. 629; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed. 23; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205. In the......
  • In re Application of Crane
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • September 11, 1915
    ... ... those objects; and is, therefore, a reasonable exercise of ... the police power of the state ... 2. The ... object of the title of an act is to give a general statement ... of the ... 1 ... of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the U.S. ( ... Foster v. State of Kansas, 112 U.S. 201, 205, 5 ... S.Ct. 8, 97, 28 L.Ed. 629, and notes; License ... ...
  • Fugate v. Weston
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1931
    ...of eternal justice." It is a part of the law of the land, or of due process of law. Va. Const., sections 8, 11; Foster Kansas, 112 U.S. 201, 5 S.Ct. 8, 97, 28 L.Ed. 629, 696; Shurtleff United States, 189 U.S. 311, 23 S.Ct. 535, 47 L.Ed. 828; 46 C.J. 989; 22 R.C.L. 574. These two last named ......
  • Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • June 16, 1931
    ...and supported by a vast array of authorities. In Ames v. Kansas, 111 U.S. 449, 4 S. Ct. 437, 28 L. Ed. 482, and Foster v. Kansas, 112 U.S. 201, 5 S. Ct. 8, 97, 28 L. Ed. 629, the Supreme Court of the United States gave much consideration to the subject, and concluded that it was a civil act......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT