State of Arkansas v. Charles Schlierholz

• Decision Date: 24 December 1900
• Docket Number: No. 122,122
• Citation: 21 S.Ct. 229,179 U.S. 598,45 L.Ed. 335
• Parties: STATE OF ARKANSAS and John A. Hinkle, as Sheriff of Independence County, Arkansas, Appts. , v. CHARLES A. M. SCHLIERHOLZ
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

179 U.S. 598

21 S.Ct. 229

45 L.Ed. 335

STATE OF ARKANSAS and John A. Hinkle, as Sheriff of Independence County, Arkansas, Appts.,

v CHARLES A. M. SCHLIERHOLZ.

No. 122.

Argued and Submitted December 6, 1900.

Decided December 24, 1900.

Two indictments were found by the grand jury of Independence county, Arkansas, against Schlierholz, appellee herein, for alleged violations of statutes of Arkansas. One indictment charged the taking possession, unlawfully, of certain timber; the other, the unlawful marking of timber. Upon such indictments Schlierholz was taken into custody by the appellant John A. Hinkle, as sheriff of Independence county. Thereupon Schlierholz presented a petition in habeas corpus to the judge of the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Arkansas. In said petition it was alleged, in substance, that the acts complained of in the indictments referred to were done by Schlierholz in the performance of his duty as a special agent of the General Land Office under the Department of the Interior of the United States. A writ of habeas corpus was allowed, and it was ordered to be served, not only on Hinkle, the sheriff, but on the prosecuting attorney of the state of Arkansas for the third judicial circuit. Issue was joined by a return filed by said prosecuting attorney. On motion, the case was transferred to the district court of the United States for the northern division of the eastern district of Arkansas. Hearing having been had, the court found that Schlierholz, in the doing of the things complained of in the indictments, acted in the performance of his duty as a special agent of the General Land Office of the United States, and in strict conformity with the rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, and that his arrest and detention were illegal and void. It was adjudged that the petitioner 'be discharged from the custody of the sheriff under the writ in the petition and response set out and go hence without day.' Thereupon, the court allowed an appeal to this court, and in the order doing so the following recitals are found:

'And at the request of the said state of Arkansas and John A. Hinkle, as sheriff, the following questions, among others involved herein, are certified to the said Supreme Court of the United States:

'1. Whether this court has jurisdiction in the premises to discharge the petitioner, Charles A. M. Schlierholz, from the custody of John A. Hinkle, sheriff of Independence county, Arkansas, for the matters and things and under the circumstances set out in the record in this cause.

'2. Whether the proper order of this court under the facts should have been to remand said petitioner to the custody of the said sheriff of Independence county, Arkansas, to be dealt with by the Independence circuit court of the state, or to discharge him from said custody.'

Mr. Morris M. Cohn submitted the case for appellants, and Messrs. Jeff Davis, S. D. Campbell, and J. C. Yancey were with him on the brief.

Solicitor General Richards for appellee.

Mr. Justice White, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

Before we can consider the principal propositions which have been argued at bar we must determine whether on this record jurisdiction exists to entertain this appeal.

The authority of this court to review the action of the court below must be found in one of three classes of cases, in which, by § 5 of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, an appeal or writ of error may be taken from a district or circuit court direct to this court. The classes of cases alluded to are as follows:

1. Cases in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue, in which class of cases the question of jurisdiction alone is to be certified from the court below for decision;

2. Cases involving the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States; and,

3. Cases in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States, or the validity or construction of any treaty made under its authority, is drawn in question.

We are of opinion that the case at bar is not embraced within either of the classes of cases just mentioned.

As respects the first class, it was said in Huntington v. Laidley (1900) 176 U.S. 676, 44 L. ed. 634, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526, as follows:

'In order to maintain the appellate jurisdiction of this court under this clause, the record must distinctly and unequivocally show that the court below sends up for consideration a single and definite question of jurisdiction. This may appear in either of two ways: by the terms of the decree appealed from and of the order allowing the appeal, or by a separate certificate of the court below. Maynard v....