Ponzi v. Fessenden

First Circuit

Ponzi v. Fessenden

280 F. 1022, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1912

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 1922

DocketNo. 1525

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 F. 1022 (Ponzi v. Fessenden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ponzi v. Fessenden, 280 F. 1022, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1912 (1st Cir. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

PEK CURIAM.

The facts in this case raised the question whether a prisoner might, with the consent of the Attorney General, while serving sentence imposed by a District Court of the United States, be lawfully taken on a writ of habeas corpus, directed to the master of the House of Correction who, as federal agent under a mittimus issued out of said District Court, had custody of such prisoner, into a state court in custody of such master and put to trial upon indictments there pending against him. On November 29, 1921, this question was certified to the Supreme Court under section 239 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1216). The Supreme Court answered this question in the atnrmative in an opinion of March 27, 1922, Ponzi v. Fessenden et al., 257 U. S. -, 42 Sup. Ct. 309, 66 L. Ed. -, and by mandate dated May 12, 1922, directed this court to take further proceedings in conformity with said opinion. Pursuant thereto the decree of the District Court, dismissing the petition and denying the writ, is affirmed, with costs to the appellees.

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

PEK CURIAM.

The facts in this case raised the question whether a prisoner might, with the consent of the Attorney General, while serving sentence imposed by a District Court of the United States, be lawfully taken on a writ of habeas corpus, directed to the master of the House of Correction who, as federal agent under a mittimus issued out of said District Court, had custody of such prisoner, into a state court in custody of such master and put to trial upon indictments there pending against him. On November 29, 1921, this question was certified to the Supreme Court under section 239 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1216). The Supreme Court answered this question in the atnrmative in an opinion of March 27, 1922, Ponzi v. Fessenden et al., 257 U. S. -, 42 Sup. Ct. 309, 66 L. Ed. -, and by mandate dated May 12, 1922, directed this court to take further proceedings in conformity with said opinion. Pursuant thereto the decree of the District Court, dismissing the petition and denying the writ, is affirmed, with costs to the appellees.

Patrick Finn and Lighthouse Management Group, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Respondents v. Alliance Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Home Federal Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, KleinBank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Merchant's Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, American Bank of St. Paul

Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2015

Finn v. Alliance Bank

860 N.W.2d 638 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 F. 1022, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 1912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ponzi-v-fessenden-ca1-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack