Opinion of the Court.

the deed signed by Sinclair and wife be put upon record in Virginia, we are of opinion that upon her death it became so far as the laws of the latter State are concerned — inoperative as a conveyance of her interest in the lands in controversy. Until the husband acknowledged it, and thereby, in the only way prescribed by statute, gave his assent to her conveying away her interest, the deed was ineffectual for any purpose. While it may not have been necessary that they should acknowledge the deed at the same time, or upon the same occasion, or before the same officer, the statute of Virginia, upon any fair interpretation of its words, and having regard to the policy which induced its enactment, must be held to have required that the acknowledgment of the husband should occur in the lifetime of the wife, while she was capable of asking his consent to the conveyance of her lands. But that assent was of no avail after the death of the wife before the husband had, by acknowledgment of the deed, signified his willingness to have her convey to Jones, under whom the defendant claims title. Upon her death the title passed to some one. It did not pass to Jones, for the reason that there was not then in existence any completed conveyance, sufficient, under the law, to transfer her estate to a grantee. It, therefore, must have passed to her heirs, and their title could not be divested by any subsequent act of the husband. The fourth section of the Virginia statute, declaring certain conveyances to be valid and binding as between the parties and their heirs, has no application to conveyances by a wife in which the husband does not join, during her lifetime, by an acknowledgment in the mode prescribed by law.

It results that, if the admissibility as evidence of the deed to Jones depends upon its validity, under the laws of Virginia, as a conveyance of Mrs. Sinclair's interest in these lands, the court erred in not excluding it from the jury.

Was the deed executed and acknowledged in conformity with the laws of Ohio, where the lands are situated? In other words, would the deed have conveyed the interest of Mrs. Sinclair if it had been executed and acknowledged in Ohio by the wife, in her lifetime, but not acknowledged by the

Opinion of the Court.

husband until after the death of the wife? If so, it may be that, under the Ohio statute of 1831, the deed would be good as between the heirs of Mrs. Sinclair and Jones; for that statute declares that a conveyance of lands in Ohio will be valid if acknowledged in conformity either with the laws of the State in which it is executed, or in conformity with the laws of Ohio.

Upon examining the statutes of Ohio- the controlling provisions of which have been referred to- and, also, the decisions of the Supreme Court of that State to which our attention has been called, we find nothing to justify us in holding that a deed for land, acknowledged by the wife, but not acknowledged by the husband in the lifetime of the wife, will pass her estate in the lands conveyed. In Ludlow v. O'Neill, 29 Ohio St. 181, it was held — using the language of the syllabus — that "under the statute of February 22, 1831, it is not indispensable to the validity of a deed executed by husband and wife that they should acknowledge it before the same officer or at the same time and place, or that their acknowledgments should be certified by a single certificate." Yet "the acknowledgment of the wife is not binding upon her until the deed is executed and acknowledged by the husband." "The husband," the court said, "can render the wife every needed protection by himself refusing to sign and acknowledge the deed. If she acknowledge it before the husband, it is presented to him with the wife's signature and acknowledgment, and he has only to refuse to acknowledge." We are of opinion that equally under the Ohio and Virginia statutes, a deed by the husband and wife conveying the latter's land is inoperative to pass her title unless the husband-she having duly acknowledged the deed—should, in her lifetime, and by an acknowledgment in the form prescribed by law, signify his assent to such conveyance. For the reasons stated the judgment is

Reversed, with directions to grant a new trial, and for further proceedings in conformity with law and the principles of this opinion.

MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS took no part in the decision of this

case.

Statement of the Case.

IN RE COY.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA.

No. 1395. Argued April 16, 17, 1888. Decided May 14, 1888.

The acts of Congress and the statutes of Indiana make it a criminal offence for an inspector of elections, or other election officer, at which an election for a member of Congress is held, to whom is committed the safe keeping and delivery to the board of canvassers of the poll books, the tally sheets, and the certificates of the votes, to fail or omit to perform this duty of safe-keeping and delivery.

In an indictment in a court of the United States for a conspiracy to induce these officers to omit such duty, in order that the documents mentioned might come to the hands of improper persons who tampered with and falsified the returns, it is not necessary to allege or prove that it was the intention of these conspirators to affect the election of the member of Congress who was voted for at that place, the returns of which were · in the same poll books, tally sheets, and certificates with those for state officers.

The authority of Congress to protect the poll books which contain the vote for a member of Congress, from the danger which might arise from the exposure of these papers to the chance of falsification or other tampering, is beyond question, and this danger is not removed because the purpose of the conspirators was to falsify the returns as to state officers found in the same poll books and certificates, and not those of the member of Congress.

The writ of habeas corpus, in case of a person held a prisoner by sentence of court, can only release the prisoner when it is shown that the court had no jurisdiction to try and punish him for the offence. The inquiry in such case is not whether there is in the indictment such specific allegation of the details of the charge as would make it good on demurrer, but whether the indictment describes a class of offences of which the court has jurisdiction, and alleges the defendant to be guilty. If the record of the case in which judgment of imprisonment is pronounced contains no charge of such offence, he should be discharged. The prisoners in the present case are specifically charged with an offence against the election laws of Indiana and of the United States, by a conspiracy to violate those laws; and this court holds that the District Court of the United States for Indiana had jurisdiction to try and punish them for that offence, and the judgment of the Circuit Court refusing the writ of habeas corpus is accordingly affirmed.

THIS was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The District Attorney of the United States for the District of Indiana

Opinion of the Court.

demurred to the petition, and the demurrer was sustained and the writ refused. The petitioners appealed. The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Cyrus F. McNutt and Mr. D. W. Voorhees for appellants. Mr. John G. McNutt and Mr. Finley A. McNutt were on the appellants' brief.

Mr. E. B. Sellers and Mr. Attorney General for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana.

The case in that court arose upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus made on behalf of Simeon Coy and William F. A. Bernhamer, whose petition alleged that they were restrained of their liberty and detained in the custody of Edward Hawkins, the marshal of the United States for the District of Indiana, and Isaac King, sheriff of Marion County in that State, who claimed to hold the prisoners under the authority of a judgment of the United States District Court. The petition sets forth the nature of the proceedings by which they were indicted and tried in that court, wherein they were found guilty of the charges specified in the indictment. The sentence of the court was "that the said William F. A. Bernhamer make his fine to the United States in the sum of one thousand dollars, and that he be imprisoned in the State Prison North (of said State) for the period of one year; and that the said Simeon Coy make his fine to the United States in the sum of one hundred dollars, and that he be imprisoned in the said State prison for the period of eighteen months." The prisoners were thereupon committed to the charge of the marshal, in whose custody they were at the time when this petition was filed.

The petitioners also presented a copy of the indictment, attached to their petition, which they say charges no offence against the United States, and that the federal district court and the grand jury thereof had no jurisdiction in the premises.

Opinion of the Court.

They allege that the action of said grand jury in returning the indictment, and of the court and the marshal thereof in taking them into custody and restraining them of their liberty under and by virtue of the judgment, order and commitment of said court, are wholly void, and the imprisonment of the petitioners unlawful.

To this petition, praying for a writ of habeas corpus, a demurrer was filed by the attorney of the United States for said district on behalf of the marshal and the sheriff. Upon the hearing of that demurrer it was sustained by the Circuit Court,1

1 By request of Mr. Justice Miller the following opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, In re Coy, 31 Fed. Rep. 794, taken from the Government's brief, is repeated here. It relates to a different indictment for the same offence, and bears directly upon the questions discussed by the court.

HARLAN, J. The petitioner, Coy, is in custody under process based upon two indictments in the District Court of the United States for the District of Indiana.

He claims that that with which he is charged, if crimes at all, are crimes against the State, and not against the United States; consequently, that the District Court is without jurisdiction to proceed against him. If this contention be sound, the prisoner is entitled to be discharged. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163; Ex parte Rowland, 104 U. S. 604; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 718, 724. Otherwise he must be remanded to the custody of the proper officer to be tried for the offences charged.

One of the indictments is under § 5440 Rev. Stat., which provides that "if two or more persons conspire either to commit any offence against the United States or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such parties do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, all the parties to such conspiracy shall be liable to a penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for not more than two years, or to both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court." § 5446 Rev. Stat., as amended by the act of May 17, 1879, c. 8, 21 Stat. 4. The first count of that indictment charges that Samuel E. Perkins, Simeon Coy, Henry Spaan, John H. Councilman, Charles N. Metcalf, John E. Sullivan, Albert T. Beck, George W. Budd, Stephen Mattler, William F. A. Bernhamer, and John L. Reardon did "conspire, confederate, and agree together, between and among themselves, to commit an offence against the United States, and did then and there, unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously, then and there conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together, between and among themselves, to induce, aid, counsel, procure, and advise one Allen Hisey to unlawfully neglect and omit to perform a duty required and imposed by the laws of the State of Indiana relating to and affecting a certain election had and held at and in the county of Marion, in the State