« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
4. Habeas corpus Om92(2)-Habeas corpus ! Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opin
not available in extradition proceedings ex. ion of the Court. cept for limited purposes, stated.
[1, 2] The appellant is charged with embezIn proceedings for extradition of alleged zlement of public funds while a public officer fugitive to foreign country, babeas corpus held available only to inquire whether magistrate of the United States of Mex*ico. He was held had jurisdiction, whether offense charged was for surrender to that Government after a within treaty with that country, and, by lib- hearing before a District Judge who found eral extension, whether there was any evi- that there was probable cause to believe that dence warranting finding that there was
he was guilty and that he was a fugitive sonable ground to believe accused guilty.
from justice. Writs of habeas corpus and cer5. Extradition email-Complaint in proceed- tiorari were issued by another District Judge
ings for extradition to foreign country of al- who came to the same conclusion and releged fugitive held sufficient,
manded the appellant. The case is brought Complaint, in proceedings for extradition here directly upon the somewhat strained to Mexico of an alleged fugitive, alleging that assumption that the construction of our complainant was informed through diplomatic treaty with Mexico is involved. Being here, channel that accused was duly and legally out of a natural anxiety to save the appelcharged in the United States of Mexico with a lant if possible from being sent from New crime, and praying arrest on behalf of that government, 'shown to have been filed by order Hampshire to Mexico for trial, it has been of Attorney General on request of Secretary presented as if this were the final stage and of State, inclosing request for extradition from every technical detail were to be proved beMexican government, and copy of proceedings yond a reasonable doubt. This is not the in Mexican court, held sufficient.
law. Form is not to be insisted upon beyond
the requirements of safety and justice. 6. Extradition Omw5_Crime of embezzlement
or peculation of public funds is within treaty Glucksman v. Henkel, 221 U. S. 508, 512, 31 with Mexico, as affects extradition of one
S. Ct. 704, 55 L. Ed. 830. Competent eviso charged.
dence to establish reasonable grounds is Crime of embezzlement or peculation of not necessarily evidence competent to conpublic furds by officer of the United States of vict. See, e. g., Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U. Mexico is crime within treaty with that coun- S. 511, 517, 36 S. Ct. 634, 60 L. Ed. 1136; Coltry, as affects extradition of one so charged. lins v. Loisel, 259 U. S. 309, 317, 42 S. Ct. 469,
66 L. Ed. 956. 1 Wigmore, Evidence (2d Ed.) 7. Extradition 12-Warrant held not de
§ 4(6), p. 21. fective because of manner in which it named
[3, 4] The foregoing are general principles alleged fugitive. Warrant for extradition held not defective limits to habeas corpus. That writ as has
relating to extradition, but there are further because it named alleged fugitive as Mariana been said very often cannot take the place of Viamonte, instead of Mariana Viamonte Fern
It is not a means for reandez; he being named both ways in proceed- a writ of error. ings, and identified by testimony.
hearing what the magistrate already has de
cided. The alleged fugitive from justice has 8. Extradition em 14(2)—Evidence held to had his hearing and habeas corpus is availwarrant finding that there was reasonable able only to inquire whether the magistrate ground to believe accused guilty of crime had jurisdiction, whether the offense charged charged, and warrant extradition.
is within the treaty and, by a somewhat libEvidence held to warrant finding that there eral extension, whether there was any eviwas reasonable ground to believe accused guil- dence warranting the finding that there was ty of embezzlement or peculation of public reasonable ground to believe the accused guilfunds while an officer of the United States of Mexico, to wit, cashier of Department of Spe- ty. Benson v. McMahon, 127 U. S. 457, 8 S. cial taxes, and to warrant his extradition,
Ct. 1240, 32 L. Ed. 231; Re Luis Oteiza y Cor
tes, 136 U. S. 330, 10 S. Ct. 1031, 34 L. Ed. Appeal from the District Court of the Unit- 464; Bryant v. United States, 167 U. S. 104, ed States for the District of New Hamp. 105, 17 S. Ct. 744, 42 L. Ed. 94; Elias v. Rashire.
mirez, 215 U. S. 398, 406, 30 S. Ct. 131, 54
L. Ed. 253. We pass to the consideration of Habeas corpus proceeding by Mariana Vi. the specific objections urged. amonte Fernandez against Perley B. Phil- (5-7] It is objected in the first place that lips, Marshal of the United States for the the complaint and warrant are defective. District of New Hampshire. From a District Court judgment remanding petitioner, he ap
The complaint was filed by an As*sistant Dispeals. Judgment affirmed.
trict Attorney of the United States for the See, also, 45 S. Ct. 195.
District of New Hampshire. It alleged that
the complainant was informed “through dipMr. John E. Benton, of Washington, D. C., lomatic channel” that the appellant was duly for appellant.
and legally charged by the United States of Mr. Harold B. Elgar, of New York City, for Mexico with the crime, and on behalf of appellee.
that government prayed the arrest. Of
(45 S.Ct.) course whatever form of words was used, the their manifestations for a time without complaint necessarily was upon information, charging himself, withdraw the amount with but as appeared at the hearing it was filed which he should charge himself for them by order of the Attorney General, upon re-ard present an account that was correct upquest of the Secretary of State, enclosing a on its face. By repeating the process is was request for the extradition from the Mexican possible to disguise an embezzlement for a Government and a copy of proceedings in a considerable time. This is what from his Mexican Court finding that the crime was du- books he seems to have done. It is unnecesly proved against the appellant and ordering sary to go into greater detail. We are of his arrest, many pages of evidence being ap- opinion that probable cause to believe the pended. This was enough. Yordi v. Nolte, defendant guilty was shown by competent 215 U. S. 227, 231, 232, 30 S. Ct. 90, 54 L. evidence and that the judgment remanding Ed. 170; Rice v. Ames, 180 U. S. 371, 375, the appellant must be affirmed. 376, 21 S. Ct. 406, 45 L. Ed. 577; Glucksman Judgment affirmed. v. Henkel, 221 U. S. 508, 514, 31 S. Ct. 704, 55 L. Ed. 830. The crime charged is embez
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND was absent zlement of peculation of the public funds be- and took no part in this decision. tween May, 1922, and February 1, 1923, while a public officer of the United States of Mex
(268 U. S. 458) ico, to wit, the Cashier of the Department of
EDWARD HINES YELLOW PINE TRUSSpecial Taxes. The crime is within the trea
TEES V. MARTIN et al. ty and sufficiently alleged. The warrant is said to be bad because it names Mariana (Argued May 1, 1925. Decided May 25, 1925.) Viamonte, and not Mariana Viamonte Fernandez, the appellant. He is named both ways
No. 363. in the proceedings and is identified by testi-1. Courts aww 367-Construction of state stat. mony. There is nothing in this objection, if
utes and rules of property by state courts a warrant is required.
ordinarily followed by federal courts.  The final objection is that there is no Meaning of state statutes and rules of evidence that the defendant is guilty of the unwritten law of state affecting property withcrime charged. This is rather a bold con- in state are peculiarly questions of local law, tention seeing that upon the evidence the ap- determination of which by state courts will pellant was Cashier in the Department of ordinarily be followed by federal courts. Special Taxes, had sole charge of the money, 2. Courts om 368—Where construction of kept the books in his own handwriting, that state statute or local property rule not esthose books disclose a considerable deficit in tablished by state decisions, federal court the cash, and that he fled the country. He will exercise independent judgment. is said to have gambled. On his books the When questions affected by interpretation appellant mingled two classes of accounts of state statutes or local rules of property and by so doing made detection difficult if he arise in federal court, that court has authority
and duty to decide them as other questions, was guilty. First there are the items *of and, when state decisions are in conflict or do cash actually received and paid out entered not clearly establish what local law is, fedrespectively under the heads ingress and eral court may exercise an independent judg
ment and determine law of case. egress. But besides these were other transactions called virtual in which he did not 3. Courts Om 367–Federal courts follow state receive the cash but was to enter a series court decisions as to rule of real property. of debits and credits. These concerned the Where a rule affecting title to real estate petroleum tax, which was a stamp tax. The within a state has been repeatedly determined taxpayers handed to the national treasurer by decisions of courts of the state so that it their tax returns, called manifestations, paid courts will follow the decisions of the state
is established as the law of the state, federal their tax and received from him a memoran
courts. dum receipt. The manifestation and receipt then were handed to the appellant. He for- 4. Courts en 367—State decisions held such as warded the receipt to the comptroller and
Supreme Court would follow without inquiry
as to justice or sufficiency of rule. entered the amount in his egress column. He
Decisions of state courts construing statshould then send the manifestation to the ute and establishing rule of property held such stamp department, which put on the proper as would be followed by Supreme Court withstamps and returned it to appellant, the out inquiry, as an original proposition, into amount being entered as ingress. In the in- justice and sufficiency of rule. terval between the egress and the ingress, he 5. Courts www383(1)-Supreme Court will not appeared as having paid out so much money
consider questions not raised or disclosed and could use that amount until it was nec
by record and not considered by courts beessary to enter the cross item. As the tax- low. payers were not very prompt in calling for The Supreme Court on certiorari will not their papers it was possible for him to keep' consider questions not raised or disclosed by
em For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
record and which were not considered by courts, which patents' shall vest the fee simple in below.
said lands in this company." Within 60 On a writ of Certiorari to the United days, the company filed a bond, executed by States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth four individuals only, in the sum specified, Circuit.
and conditioned on the performance by the
company of all duties imposed on it by the Four suits in equity by the Edward Hines Act of April 8, 1871. The bond was apYellow Pine Trustees against Anna F. C. proved by the Governor, and the patent of Martin, against F. C. Martin, against H. P. June 27, 1871, describing the lands referred Lewis, and against George Lawrence, consol. to in that statute, including the lands inidated and tried together. To review a de volved in this litigation, was issued, signed cree for defendants, affirmed on appeal by by the Governor and countersigned by the Circuit Court of Appeals (296 F. 442), com- Secretary of State. plainants bring certiorari. Judgment of Cir
The validity of petitioner's title depends cuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
upon the determination of the question See, also, 265 U. S. 576, 44 S. Ct. 461, 68 whether the bond filed by the company was L. Ed. 1187.
a compliance with the provisions of the stat*Mr. T. J. Wills, of Hattiesburg, Miss., for ute so as to render operative the patent is
sued by the officials of the state to the competitioners.
Mr. Fleet C. Hathorn, of Hattiesburg, pany as a valid conveyance of the fee of the Miss., for respondents.
lands in question. Whether or not the bond
was a compliance with the statute and the Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion legal effect of the patent, so far as other
lands embraced within its description are of the Court.
Petitioners, complainants below, filed four concerned, are points which have been severbills in equity in the United States District al times passed upon by the state courts of Court for the Southern District of Mississip- Mississippi and once before the present litipi against four different defendants to re- gation, were considered by the United States move cloud on title of four plots of land Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir. separately described in the several bills. cuit. The suits thus brought were consolidated
In Hardy v. Hartman (1888) 65 Miss. 504, and tried by the District Court, as one, up- 4 So. 545, which was an action of ejectment, on an agreed statement of facts and docu- the court, although referring to the fact that mentary evidence, and a decree was rendered it did not appear from the record that any adjudging that the title to the lands in ques- patent signed by the Governor and countertion was in defendants and denying the pray- signed by the Secretary of State was ever er of the bill. On appeal to the Circuit Court issued to the company for the land in quesof Appeals, the decree was affirmed. 296 F. tion, nevertheless rested its decision on its 442.
The lands in question were acquired by the *holding that the Act of April 8, 1871, requirstate of Mississippi from the United States ed, as a condition precedent to the validity under act of Congress approved September of any patent issued pursuant to it, that the 28, 1850 (9 Stat. 519). Petitioner's title de company should file in the office of the Secpends upon the validity of a patent issued, retary of State its own bond in the amount June 27, 1871, by the state of Mississippi to specified; that by filing a bond executed by the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation individuals it had not complied with the con. Company, a corporation from which peti- dition and the patent was accordingly void. tioners derived their title by mesne convey
In Southern Pine Co. v. Hall, 105 F. 84, The title set up by the defendants 44 0. C. A. 363, decided in 1900, suit was was acquired by mesne conveyances under brought, as in the present case, to quiet the a second patent describing the same lands, title of a plaintiff claiming under the comissued by the state of Mississippi to Mitchell pany. In that case the Circuit Court of ApDecember 7, 1883. The Mississippi Legisla- peals for the Fifth Circuit held that the true ture, by act approved April 8, 1871 (Laws meaning of the statute, confirmed by the con1871, c. 169), incorporated the Pearl River temporary construction of it on the part of Improvement & Navigation Company and pro- the Governor and the Secretary of State by
their action in issuing the patent, was that vided that that company *should "within six- the company should file a bond in the specity days after the passage of this act, file fied amount insuring an indemnity to the in the office of the Secretary of State a bond state in that amount. Having complied with in the sum of $50,000, with two or more good the requirements of the statute by filing the securities,” and that upon the approval and approved bond of four solvent individuals, filing of the bond, "the said Secretary of residents of the state, the patent issued to State shall from time to time as demanded the company by the state of Mississippi was by said company make out a patent or pat- held to be valid and to pass a fee to the ents which shall be signed by the Governor patentee. and countersigned by the Secretary of State, In Becker V. Columbia Bank, 112 Miss.
(45 S.Ct.) 819, 73 So. 798, decided in 1917, which was | Land Co. v. Zeiss, 219 U. S. 47, 31 S. Ct. 200, also a suit to quiet title of lands claimed un- 55 L. Ed. 82; Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Inder the patent of 1871, the Supreme Court of dustrial Accident Commission, 255 U. S. 445, Mississippi reaffirmed the principle of its de- 41 S. Ct. 373, 65 L. Ed. 723; North Laramie cision in Hardy v. Hartman, supra, saying Land Co. v. Hoffman, 268 U. S. 276, 45 S. Ct. that that “decision established a rule of 491, 69 L. Ed. 953, decided May 11, 1925. property which should not now be disturb- And follow rules of property declared by ed,” and that the failure to comply with the state courts. Jackson ex dem. St. John V. requirements of the statute as interpreted in Hardy v. Hartman, supra, rendered the pur-Chew, *12 Wheat. 153, 6 L. Ed. 583; Suydam ported patent to the company void and that
v. Williamson, 24 How. 427, 16 L. Ed. 742; the patentee took no title under it.
Williams v. Kirtland, 13 Wall. 306, 20 L. Ed. In Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees 683; League v. Egery et al., 24 How. 264, 16 v. State ex rel. Moore (1924) 134 Miss. 533, L. Ed. 655; Smith Purifier v. McGroarty, 98 So. 158, the Supreme Court of Mississippi 136 U. S. 237, 10 S. Ct. 1017, 34 L. Ed. 346; again affirmed and adopted the view laid Warburton v. Wright, 176 U. S. 484, 20 s. down in Hardy v. Hartman, supra, saying at Ct. 404, 44 L. Ed. 555. page 534 (98 So. 158):
[2-4) When questions affected by the inter
pretation of a state statute or a local rule "We are not here concerned with the cor- of property arise in a federal court, that rectness of the decision in Hardy v. Hartman, court has the same authority and duty to supra, and the rule there "applied, whether decide them as it has to decide any other correct or not, to titles derived through patents questions which arise in a cause, and where issued to the Pearl River Improvement & Navi- state decisions are in conflict or do not cleargation Company has become a rule of prop-ly establish what the local law is, the federal erty and will not be now departed from.” court may exercise an independent judg.
ment and determine the law of the case. See The validity of titles derived under the Pease v. Peck, 18 How. 595, 598, 15 L. Ed. same patent to the company appears to have 915; Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, 2 S. been upheld in the case of Hines et al., Trus-Ct. 10, 27 L. Ed. 359; Barber v. Pittsburgh, tees, v. Martin by the Supreme Court of etc., Railway, 166 U. S. 83, 99, 17 S. Ct. 488, 41 Mississippi, decided without opinion Febru- L. Ed. 925; Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co., 215 ary 4, 1924, 99 So. 825.
U. S. 349, 30 S. Ct. 140, 54 L. Ed. 228. This  In all these cases the question ruled court has refused to follow a rule established upon was whether the bond filed by the com- only by single state decision rendered, after pany complied with the requirements of the the rights involved in the case in the federal statute and whether the filing of a bond sat-court accrued, Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co., isfying those requirements was a condition supra, or a single decision when not satisfied precedent to the execution of the patent and that it is conclusive evidence of the state law, the vesting of title in the patentee. An an
Barber v. Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne & Chicago swer to these questions involved an inter- Railway Co., 166 U. S. 83, 99, 17 S. Ct. 488, pretation of the state statute and the appli- 41 L. ED. 925. In Burgess v. Seligman, sucation of it, as interpreted, as a rule of prop- pra, this court refused to follow decisions of erty determinative of rights in titles to land the state court conflicting with a previous within the state. Both the meaning of stat- decision of the United States Circuit Court, utes of a state and the rules of the unwrit- in that case, with respect to the interpretaten law of a state affecting property within tion of a state statute, fixing the liability of the state are peculiarly questions of local stockholders of a corporation organized unlaw to be ascertained and established by the der the laws of the state as applied to a state courts. For that reason federal courts stockholder who was a nonresident of the ordinarily hold themselves bound by the in- state and who acquired his interest in the terpretation of state statutes by the state stock outside of the state. But where the courts. Walker v. State Harbor Commis- rule is one affecting title to real estate withsioners, 17 Wall. 648, 21 L. Ed. 744; Barrett in the state and has been repeatedly deterv. Holmes, 102 U. S. 651, 26 L. Ed. 291 ; mined by decisions of state courts so that it Geekie v. Kirby Carpenter Co., 106 U. S. I is established as the law of the state, there 379, 385, 1 S. Ct. 315, 27 L. Ed. 157; Mc. has been no departure from the rule that the Arthur v. Scott, 113 U. S. 340, 5 S. Ct. 652, federal courts will follow the decisions of the 28 L. Ed. 1015; Schley v. Pullman Car Co.,
state courts. Jackson ex dem. St. John v. 120 U. S. 575, 580, 7 S. Ct. 730, 30 L. Ed. 789; Chew, supra; Green v. Neal, 6 Pet. 291, 8 Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co., 125 U. S. 555, 8 S. Ct. 974, 31 L. Ed. 795; Ridings v. John L. Ed. 402; Suydam *v. Williamson, 24 How. son, 128 U. S. 212, 224, 9 S. Ct. 72, 32 L. Ed. 427, 16 L. Ed. 742; Walker v. State Harbor 401; Heath v. Wallace, 138 U. S. 573, 11 S. Commission, 17 Wall. 618, 21 L. Ed. 744; Ct. 380, 34 L. Ed. 1063; Bauserman v. Blunt, Barrett v. Holmes, 102 U. S. 651, 26 L. Ed. 147 U. S. 647, 13 S. Ct. 466, 37 L. Ed. 316; 291. And this is the rule even though the Balkam v. Woodstock Iron Co., 154 U. S. state rule is not approved. Walker v. State 177, 14 S. Ct. 1010, 38 L. Ed. 953; American Harbor Commissioner, supra; Bucher
Cheshire Railway Co., 125 U. S. 555, 8 S. Ct. | the payments stipulated for in the statute. 974, 31 L. Ed. 795; Balkam v. Woodstock This court is a court of review, and it will Iron Co., 154 U. S. 177, 14 S. Ct. 1010, 38 L. not consider questions not raised or disclosEd. 953. To avoid the uncertainty and in-ed by the record brought to it for a review justice which result from "the discordant and which were not considered by the courts elements of a substantial right which is pro- below. McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, tected in one set of courts and denied in the 283, 30 S. Ct. 501, 54 L. Ed. 762; Bass, etc., other, with no superior to decide which is Ltd. v. Tax Commission, 266 U. S. 271, 285, right" (Brine v. Insurance Co., 96 U. S. 627, 45 S. Ct. 82, 69 L. Ed. 282. And see Davis 24 L. Ed. 858), this court has not hesitated, v. Currie, 266 U. S. 182, 45 S. Ct. 88, 69 L. when there has been a conflict of decision be- Ed. 234, and United States Fidelity & Guartween it and the state courts affecting a anty Co. v. Woolridge, 268 U. S. 234, 45 S. rule of property within the state, to over- Ct. 489, 69 L. Ed. 932, decided May 11, 1925. rule its own decisions and to follow the state In these circumstances, the petitioners candecisions once it has become evident that not be heard to claim anything in these cases they have established a "rule of property" as under the Act of 1873, and beyond this, we the settled law of the state. Green v. Lessee decide nothing in respect to it. of eal, 6 Pet. 291, 8 L. Ed. 402; Suydam Judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals v. Williamson, supra; Fairfield v. County of is affirmed. Gallatin, 100 U. S. 47, 25 L. Ed. 544; Robert v. Lewis, 153 U. S. 367, 376, 14 S. Ct. 915, 38
(268 U. S. 435) L. Ed. 747, and see Bauserman v. Blunt, su- DUMBRA et al. v. UNITED STATES. pra, overruling a decision of the Circuit Court antedating a conflicting decision of the (Argued and Submitted April 20, 21, 1925. Destate court. We are therefore constrained in
cided May 25, 1925.) the present case to accept the view of the
No. 546. state courts as announced by them without inquiring, as an original proposition, into the 1. Intoxicating liquors Ow249Prohibition justice and sufficiency of the rule which we agent has power and authority to serve search follow.
warrant. In the argument before this court, peti
Under National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, & 2 tioners relied upon the effect of chapter 114 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, $ 1013842a), and of the Laws of Mississippi of 1873 (page 120), Espionage Act, tit. 11, § 6 (Comp. St. 1918,
Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 1049614f), a as validating his title. This was a private prohibition agent regularly appointed by Com. act of the Legislature of Mississippi which missioner of Internal Revenue has power and relieved the Pearl River Improvement & authority to serve search warrant. Navigation Company from some of its obligations under the Act of April 8, 1871, upon
2. Intoxicating liquors en 101, 246—Permit for
manufacture and possession of nonbeverage certain payınents to be made by it to the
wine does not afford protection to one posstate treasury, and provided that,
sessing liquors with intent to use in violation "All acts, deeds and proceedings, whatever of
of Prohibition Act, the Pearl River Improvement and Navigation Permit under National Prohibition Act, tit. Company, be, and the same are hereby legalized, 2, § 3 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1013819aa), ratified and confirmed." Section 6.
authorizing manufacture and possession of
wine for nonbeverage purposes, does not afford *465  *This appears to be the first occasion in intent to use them in violation of Prohibition
protection to one possessing such liquors with the course of this litigation on which the Act, and liquor so possessed is subject to search existence of this statute, and the claim of and seizure under section 25, tit. 2, of the act right under it by the petitioner, have been (section 1013842m). brought to the attention of the court, al. 3. Intoxicating liquors w248—Affidavit held though it appears to have been before the
to show probable cause for issuance of search state court, but not commented on, in Beck
warrant; "probable cause." er v. Columbia Bank, supra, and Hines Yel
Affidavit on which search warrant was islow Pine Trustee v. Martin, supra. It is not sued, wherein affiant alleged purchases of wine referred to in the record here. By the agreed in grocery store adjoining winery operated unstatement of facts the Act of April 8, 1871, der government permit, under circumstances and the patent issued to the company are indicating that wine purchased was obtained the only suggested source of title in the pe- from winery, held sufficient to establish probable titioners. No reference is made to the Act
cause for issuance of search warrant under of 1873 in the assignments of error. The
National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 25 (Comp. record gives no information as to the exist- St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1013842m), Espionage ing situation at the time it was passed; as Comp. St. 'Ann. Supp. 1919, $8 10196-4e,
Act, tit. 11, 88 5 and 16 (Comp. St. 1918, to what lands had been conveyed by the com- 1049614p), and Const. U. S. Amend. 4; "probapany or what lands retained. We are left ble cause" being reasonable ground for suspiuninformed as to whether the company made cion, supported by circumstances sufficiently
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes