United States ex rel. Lutz v. Ragen, No. 9500.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtSPARKS, , KERNER, Circuit , and LINDLEY
Citation171 F.2d 788
PartiesUNITED STATES ex rel. LUTZ v. RAGEN, Warden.
Decision Date08 February 1949
Docket NumberNo. 9500.

171 F.2d 788 (1948)

UNITED STATES ex rel. LUTZ
v.
RAGEN, Warden.

No. 9500.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

October 20, 1948.

Rehearing Denied February 8, 1949.


171 F.2d 789

Louis C. Karbiner, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. and William C. Wines, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Raymond S. Sarnow and James C. Murray, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellee.

Before SPARKS, Chief Judge, KERNER, Circuit Judge, and LINDLEY, District Judge.

KERNER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus brought in the District Court after petitioner had exhausted his remedies in the State court. On June 3, 1935, petitioner was duly indicted and thereafter tried before a jury, found guilty in the Circuit Court of Grundy County, Illinois, of the crime of murder, and by that court, pursuant to the verdict of the jury, sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of his natural life.

The ground upon which the petition for writ of habeas corpus was based was that his trial and conviction were without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that his conviction was obtained by virtue of the false testimony of two witnesses whom he alleged were bribed by the prosecuting attorney. See White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 763, 65 S. Ct. 978, 89 L.Ed. 1348.

The record discloses that after the District Court had issued the habeas corpus writ, the petitioner was produced in court and testimony was heard. At these hearings petitioner was represented by counsel, after which the court found against the petitioner and dismissed the writ on May 2, 1947.

In this court appellee has made no motion to dismiss the appeal, but he does call our attention to the fact that petitioner did not file his notice of appeal until October 5, 1947, more than five months after the entry of the order from which he appeals, and in his brief states: "The Attorney General does not desire to defeat any prisoner's right to review upon a technicality. He does, however, deem it to be his duty to call this court's attention to the fact that it appears to have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal."

Appeal is granted to a losing party on condition that he complies with the terms of the law whereby it is authorized. It is he who seeks relief from the operation of a judgment or decree against him, and it devolves upon him to act to that end. United States v. New National Coal & Mining Co., 7 Cir., 72 F.2d 168. By...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Waddell v. Chicago Land Clearance Commission, No. 10900.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 11, 1953
    ...an appeal could be perfected. This appeal therefore is not timely and must be dismissed. United States ex rel. Lutz v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 171 F.2d 788; Lejeune v. Midwestern Insurance Company, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d Appellants' motion to defer our ruling is denied. Appellees' motions to dismiss the a......
  • United States v. Ragen, No. 11628.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 4, 1956
    ...v. Ellis, 5 Cir., 204 F.2d 685, 686. Compare: Botwinski v. Dowd, 7 Cir., 118 F.2d 829, 830; United States ex rel. Lutz v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 171 F.2d 788, 789, certiorari denied Lutz v. Ragen, 337 U. S. 910, 69 S.Ct. 1044, 93 L.Ed. 1722; Joyner v. Parkinson, 7 Cir., 227 F.2d 505, True, no motio......
  • Kapsalis v. Wilson, No. 21052.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 9, 1967
    ...347, 2 L.Ed.2d 277 (1958). And the time limit cannot be extended by the parties or by order of court. United States ex rel. Lutz v. Ragen, 171 F.2d 788 (7th Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 910, 69 S.Ct. 1044, 93 L.Ed. 1722 (1949). Thus the fact that a certificate of probable cause was is......
  • BEACON FED. S. & L. ASS'N v. Federal Home Loan Bank Bd., No. 12475.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • June 2, 1959
    ...Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449, 453, 20 S.Ct. 690, 44 L.Ed. 842; United States ex rel. Lutz v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 171 F.2d 788, and Marten v. Hess, 6 Cir., 176 F.2d 834. Accordingly, the proceedings subsequently commenced by Beacon to have fees allowed had no effect ......
4 cases
  • Waddell v. Chicago Land Clearance Commission, No. 10900.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 11, 1953
    ...an appeal could be perfected. This appeal therefore is not timely and must be dismissed. United States ex rel. Lutz v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 171 F.2d 788; Lejeune v. Midwestern Insurance Company, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d Appellants' motion to defer our ruling is denied. Appellees' motions to dismiss the a......
  • United States v. Ragen, No. 11628.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 4, 1956
    ...v. Ellis, 5 Cir., 204 F.2d 685, 686. Compare: Botwinski v. Dowd, 7 Cir., 118 F.2d 829, 830; United States ex rel. Lutz v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 171 F.2d 788, 789, certiorari denied Lutz v. Ragen, 337 U. S. 910, 69 S.Ct. 1044, 93 L.Ed. 1722; Joyner v. Parkinson, 7 Cir., 227 F.2d 505, True, no motio......
  • Kapsalis v. Wilson, No. 21052.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 9, 1967
    ...347, 2 L.Ed.2d 277 (1958). And the time limit cannot be extended by the parties or by order of court. United States ex rel. Lutz v. Ragen, 171 F.2d 788 (7th Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 910, 69 S.Ct. 1044, 93 L.Ed. 1722 (1949). Thus the fact that a certificate of probable cause was is......
  • BEACON FED. S. & L. ASS'N v. Federal Home Loan Bank Bd., No. 12475.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • June 2, 1959
    ...Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449, 453, 20 S.Ct. 690, 44 L.Ed. 842; United States ex rel. Lutz v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 171 F.2d 788, and Marten v. Hess, 6 Cir., 176 F.2d 834. Accordingly, the proceedings subsequently commenced by Beacon to have fees allowed had no effect ......

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