Ward v. State of Maryland
| Decision Date | 01 December 1870 |
| Citation | 20 L.Ed. 260,12 Wall. 163,79 U.S. 163 |
| Parties | WARD v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ON motion to advance this cause, one in error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland.
An act of Congress, passed June 30th, 1870, and quoted also in the preceding case, enacts:
'That in all suits and actions . . . now pending, or which may hereafter be brought, in any of the courts of the United States, whether original suits in courts of the United States or brought into said courts by appeal or writ of error, . . . wherein a State is a party, or where the execution of the revenue laws of any State may be enjoined or stayed by judicial order or process, it shall be the duty of any court in which such case may be pending, on sufficient reason shown, to give such cause the preference and priority over all other civil causes pending in such court between private parties.
'And the State, or the party claiming under the laws of the State, the execution of whose revenue laws is enjoined or suspended, shall have a right to have such cause heard at any time after such cause is docketed in such court in preference to any other civil cause pending in such court between private parties.'
And the 30th rule of this court prescribes:
'All cases on the calendar, except cases advanced as hereinafter provided, SHALL be heard when reached in the regular call of the docket, and in the order in which they are entered.'
'Criminal cases may be advanced, by leave of the court, on motion of either party.'
With this enactment and this rule in force on Ward had been convicted, in one of the inferior State courts of Maryland, on an indictment for trading without having a license, as required by the laws of that State, and the judgment was affirmed in the Court of Appeals. It appeared that Ward was not in jail. The case being now here on writ of error this motion was made to advance the hearing of it.
Motion to advance the cause filed by the plaintiff in error. Indictment. The parties agreed that the defendant on the day and at the place named in the indictment did sell the articles of merchandise therein named without obtaining a license, as required by the laws of the State. Plea not guilty. Issue tried by court. Finding for the State. He moves the court to advance the cause.
Clearly the motion is not within the act of Congress of the thirtieth of June, 1870, as the motion is not filed by the State, nor by a party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Gemmill
... ... 1 ... Sections 1475 and 1476 of the Rev. Codes, which require that ... state and county printing, binding and stationery work, shall ... be [20 Idaho 733] done within the ... commercial transactions violates the right of equal ... privileges and immunities." ( Ward v. Maryland, ... 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 163, 20 L.Ed. 260; Welton v ... Missouri, 91 U.S. 275, 23 ... ...
-
State v. Travelers' Ins. Co.
...of a corporation under the grant of corporate franchise is not secured in any constitution; certainly not in our own. In Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 20 L. Ed. 260, the right to freedom of occupation was invaded by a discriminating tax against nonresident traders. In Blake v. McClung, 17......
-
Valle v. Stengel
...the right of a citizen to engage in lawful commerce, trade or business without molestation or harassment. See Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 163, 79 U.S. 418, 430, 20 L.Ed. 260. The "Privileges and Immunities" clause also guarantees the right of the individual citizen to engage in the pursuit o......
-
Miller v. State of Texas
...such privileges and immunities are defined in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, and in Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, and Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 163. The writ of error is therefore dismissed. ...