Holley v. Lawrence

Supreme Court

Holley v. Lawrence

317 U.S. 518, 63 S. Ct. 394, 87 L. Ed. 434, 1943 U.S. LEXIS 1020

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 18, 1943·No. 600·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Court has examined all the federal questions raised by appellant. In so far as the appeal challenges the validity of Georgia Code § 38-1604, which makes in-' competent the testimony of a wife at the trial of her husband, the judgment of the court below rests upon a non-federal ground adequate to support it, namely, that the failure to tender such testimony at the trial barred any later claim of the alleged constitutional right (Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mims, 242 U. S. 532, 535). The Court finds that no other federal question presented by the appeal warrants review by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Court has examined all the federal questions raised by appellant. In so far as the appeal challenges the validity of Georgia Code § 38-1604, which makes in-' competent the testimony of a wife at the trial of her husband, the judgment of the court below rests upon a non-federal ground adequate to support it, namely, that the failure to tender such testimony at the trial barred any later claim of the alleged constitutional right (Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mims, 242 U. S. 532, 535). The Court finds that no other federal question presented by the appeal warrants review by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Dismissed.

Holley v. Lawrence, 317 U.S. 518, 63 S. Ct. 394, 87 L. Ed. 434, 1943 U.S. LEXIS 1020 (1943).

Pincite

317 U.S. 518 (Holley v. Lawrence) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related