Pundt v. Pendleton
Decision Date | 11 February 1909 |
Parties | PUNDT v. PENDLETON, Jailer. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
John W Henley, for complainant.
William E. Mann, for defendant.
The matter for determination here arises on a petition for writ of habeas corpus issued on behalf of the petitioner, W. A Pundt, the answer of the jailer of Catoosa county, to whom the writ was directed, and agreed statement of facts together with certain documentary evidence. The statement of facts, which will show clearly the question raised, is as follows:
The statute of the state of Georgia on the subject of road duty provides:
'All male inhabitants of this state between the ages of sixteen and fifty shall be subject to work on the public road.'
To this general duty there are certain exceptions not material here.
The petitioner was employed as a teamster in the Quartermaster's Department in the United States army in connection with the troops of the regular army of the United States stationed at Ft. Oglethorpe. The land on which Ft. Oglethorpe and the buildings appurtenant to it are situated is a part of a tract of land of which jurisdiction was ceded to the United States by an act of the Legislature of Georgia (Laws Ga. 1890-91, vol. 1, p. 200), as follows:
'Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Georgia, that the jurisdiction of this state is hereby ceded to the United States of America over all such lands and roads as are described and referred to in the foregoing preamble to this act, which lie within the territorial limits of this state, for the purpose of a National Park, or so much thereof as the national Congress may deem best; provided, that this cession is upon the express condition that the state of Georgia shall so far retain a concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over said lands and roads as that all civil and criminal process issued under the authority of this state may be executed thereon in like manner, as if this act had not been passed; and upon the further express conditions, that the state shall retain its civil and criminal jurisdiction over persons and citizens in said ceded...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte White
...v. Stokes, 3 How. 151, 11 L.Ed. 537; Bank v. Comm., 9 Wall. 353, 19 L.Ed. 701; Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 20 L.Ed. 122; Pundt v. Pendleton (D.C.) 167 F. 997; v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L.Ed. 745; Hylton v. U.S., 3 Dall. 171, 1 L.Ed. 556; 5 A. & E.Ency. 142; 6 Cyc. 349; 14 Cyc. 849. Whil......
-
Brittain v. Reid
...interference and jurisdiction of the state as would destroy or impair their effective use for the purposes designed.' See also Pundt v. Pendleton, D.C., 167 F. 997. In International Business Machines Corp. v. Evans, 213 Ga. 333, 99 S.E.2d 220, Mr. Chief Justice Duckworth, writing the opinio......
- In re Kearney