George W. Ferguson v. Wyndham Manning, Superintendent of the South Carolina Prison

216 F.2d 188
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 6, 1954
Docket6873_1
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 216 F.2d 188 (George W. Ferguson v. Wyndham Manning, Superintendent of the South Carolina Prison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
George W. Ferguson v. Wyndham Manning, Superintendent of the South Carolina Prison, 216 F.2d 188 (4th Cir. 1954).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner incarcerated under- the judgment and sentence of a court of the State of South Carolina. Petitioner was convicted under two counts of an indictment one of which charged conspiracy to set up a .numbers lottery and the other the actual setting up of the lottery. He was given a sentence of three years imprispn.ment and a fine under the conspiracy count and a sentence of one year and a fine under the cpunt charging the substantive offense. - On appeal to the Supreme Court, of the state, he contended that the law of the state did not authorize his conviction under the conspiracy count and that, in any event, imprisonment under that count could not exceed the term authorized for the substantive offense. The questions thus raised were squarely decided against appellant by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. State v. Ferguson, 221 S.C. 300, 70 S.E.2d 355. Nevertheless these are the questions and the only questions raised on the application to the court below for the writ of habeas corpus or on the appeal from the order of that court denying the writ.

We think that the writ was properly denied. It is too well settled to admit of argument that the federal courts are bound by the interpretation placed upon the statutes of a state by its highest court; and the only questions raised by the application for the writ are questions of this character which the Supreme Court of South Carolina has decided. Under such circumstances it was not incumbent on the court below to issue the writ. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 458, 73 S.Ct. 397, 407, 97 L.Ed. 469.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Frank E. Wetzel v. Ralph Edwards, Etc.
635 F.2d 283 (Fourth Circuit, 1980)
Saville v. Scafati
297 F. Supp. 397 (D. Massachusetts, 1969)
United States Ex Rel. Boyance v. Myers
270 F. Supp. 734 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1967)
Daloia v. Rhay
252 F.2d 768 (Ninth Circuit, 1958)
Sessions v. Manning
147 F. Supp. 396 (E.D. South Carolina, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 F.2d 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-w-ferguson-v-wyndham-manning-superintendent-of-the-south-carolina-ca4-1954.