Home/Supreme Court/In Re Lancaster

In Re Lancaster

137 U.S. 393, 11 S. Ct. 117, 34 L. Ed. 713, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2098
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedDecember 5, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 137 U.S. 393 (In Re Lancaster) 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
In Re Lancaster, 137 U.S. 393, 11 S. Ct. 117, 34 L. Ed. 713, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2098 (1890).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

The petitioners were indicted under sections 5508 and 5509 of the Revised Statutes, on the 20th of November, 1890, in the Circuit Court for the Southern ‘District of Georgia, and have been taken into custody. They have not invoked the action of the Circuit Court upon the sufficiency of the indictment by a motion to quash or otherwise, but ask leave to file in this court a petition for a writ'of habeas corpus, upon the ground that the matters and things set forth and charged do not constitute any offence or offences under the laws of the United States, or cognizable in the Circuit Court, and that for other reasons the indictment cannot be sustained. In this posture of the case we must decline to interfere.

The application for leave to file the petition is

Denied.

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

Related

Overholser v. Treibly
147 F.2d 705 (D.C. Circuit, 1945)
Enge v. Clark
144 F.2d 638 (Ninth Circuit, 1944)
United States Ex Rel. Potts v. Rabb
141 F.2d 45 (Third Circuit, 1944)
In Re Bell
122 P.2d 22 (California Supreme Court, 1942)
Ex parte Finn
16 F. Supp. 1 (E.D. Kentucky, 1936)
In Re Davis
152 A. 188 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1930)
Dockter v. White
25 F.2d 74 (Eighth Circuit, 1928)
Bens v. United States
266 F. 152 (Second Circuit, 1920)
Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Barnett
213 S.W. 365 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Ex parte Blazekovic
248 F. 327 (E.D. Michigan, 1918)
Ex parte Tinkoff
254 F. 222 (N.D. Illinois, 1918)
People ex rel. Moore v. Warden of the City Prison
150 A.D. 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
Hooper v. Remmel
165 F. 336 (Eighth Circuit, 1908)
Ex parte Doyle
57 S.E. 824 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1907)
In Re Lincoln
202 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1906)
Riggins v. United States
199 U.S. 547 (Supreme Court, 1905)
In Re. Dykes and Baker
1903 OK 77 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1903)
In re Hacker
73 F. 464 (S.D. California, 1896)
In Re Chapman
156 U.S. 211 (Supreme Court, 1895)
In re Greene
52 F. 104 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 U.S. 393, 11 S. Ct. 117, 34 L. Ed. 713, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lancaster-scotus-1890.