Van Meter v. Snook

Fifth Circuit

Van Meter v. Snook

15 F.2d 377, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2904

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 1926

DocketNo. 4914

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 F.2d 377 (Van Meter v. Snook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Van Meter v. Snook, 15 F.2d 377, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2904 (5th Cir. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a discharge under a writ of habeas corpus. The attack on the judgment of conviction under which appellant was held was based on the action of the trial court in overruling a plea of former conviction; that court’s jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the appellant not being impeached.

The ground of attack on the judgment being a mere asserted error of the trial court in ruling on- a matter set up as a defense, that action of the trial court is not subject to be reviewed on habeas corpus. Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U. S. 328, 5 S. Ct. 542, 28 L. Ed. 1005; In re Eckart, Petitioner, 166 U. S. 481, 17 S. Ct. 638, 41 L. Ed. 1085; 2-9 C. J. 45. If the attacked ruling was erroneous, the error did not have the effect of rendering the judgment of conviction a nullity.

The order is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a discharge under a writ of habeas corpus. The attack on the judgment of conviction under which appellant was held was based on the action of the trial court in overruling a plea of former conviction; that court’s jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the appellant not being impeached.

The ground of attack on the judgment being a mere asserted error of the trial court in ruling on- a matter set up as a defense, that action of the trial court is not subject to be reviewed on habeas corpus. Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U. S. 328, 5 S. Ct. 542, 28 L. Ed. 1005; In re Eckart, Petitioner, 166 U. S. 481, 17 S. Ct. 638, 41 L. Ed. 1085; 2-9 C. J. 45. If the attacked ruling was erroneous, the error did not have the effect of rendering the judgment of conviction a nullity.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 F.2d 377, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-meter-v-snook-ca5-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack