Ex Parte Hitz

111 U.S. 766, 4 S. Ct. 698, 28 L. Ed. 592, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1832
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 5, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 111 U.S. 766 (Ex Parte Hitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Hitz, 111 U.S. 766, 4 S. Ct. 698, 28 L. Ed. 592, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1832 (1884).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the ^.pinion of the court. He stated the facts in the foregoing language and continued:

Precisely what the relations of Mr. Hitz to the United States were as' Political Agent of the Swiss Confederation we have not been advised, and on application to the Department of State, made on the suggestion of the court by the counsel in this proceeding, we are informed that the records of the department show nothing upon this subject except a letter from him under date of March,30th, 1868, enclosing his letter of credence, and soliciting an interview with the Secretary of State for its formal presentation; the answer of Secretary Seward according such an interview, and fixing the 2d of April as the time; and a letter from Secretary Fish to Mr. Hitz, under date of June 28th, 1870, informing him that he *768 (the Secretary) did not find in his relations to the United States-any ground for continuing the privilege to him of a free entry of goods imported for his use.

Under these circumstances, as the writ of certiorari, when applied for - by a defendant, is not a writ of right, but discretionary With the court (Bac. Ab. Certiorari A), we deny this application, leaving the parties to such remedies as they may be entitled to elsewhere, or under any other form of proceeding.

Petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tachiona v. United States
386 F.3d 205 (Second Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Al-Hamdi
Fourth Circuit, 2004
Long v. Steepro
27 F. App'x 625 (Seventh Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Guinand
688 F. Supp. 774 (District of Columbia, 1988)
Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino
376 U.S. 398 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Baker v. Carr
369 U.S. 186 (Supreme Court, 1962)
United States v. Melekh
193 F. Supp. 586 (N.D. Illinois, 1961)
Farnsworth v. Sanford
115 F.2d 375 (Fifth Circuit, 1940)
Chapman v. St. Stephens Protestant Episcopal, Church, Inc.
139 So. 188 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Greyerbiehl v. Hughes Electric Co.
294 F. 802 (Eighth Circuit, 1923)
United States v. Merck & Co.
8 Ct. Cust. 171 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1917)
United States v. Dickinson
213 U.S. 92 (Supreme Court, 1909)
Portland Gold Mining Co. v. Duke
164 F. 180 (Eighth Circuit, 1908)
Whitney v. Dick
202 U.S. 132 (Supreme Court, 1906)
Iasigi v. Van De Carr
166 U.S. 391 (Supreme Court, 1897)
Jones v. United States
137 U.S. 202 (Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 U.S. 766, 4 S. Ct. 698, 28 L. Ed. 592, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-hitz-scotus-1884.