Wagoner v. Swope

Ninth Circuit

Wagoner v. Swope

87 F.2d 995, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2641

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 3, 1937

DocketNo. 8384

StatusPublished

This text of 87 F.2d 995 (Wagoner v. Swope) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wagoner v. Swope, 87 F.2d 995, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2641 (9th Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

PER curiam:.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The appellant was convicted of uttering United States bonds, having forged indorsement thereon. Appellant contends that by a construction of this indictment with a number of others returned at the same time charging conspiracy and forgery, it appears from all these indictments construed together that the payee of the registered bond either indorsed or authorized the indorsement of the bonds and, consequently, argues that there is no forgery and therefore there could be no uttering of the forgery. These questions cannot be raised by writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Ruef, 150 Cal. 665, 89 P. 605; In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731, 8 S.Ct. 1263, 32 L.Ed. 274; Goto et al. v. Lane, 265 U.S. 393, 44 S.Ct. 525, 68 L.Ed. 1070.

Order 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 dismissing appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The appellant was convicted of uttering United States bonds, having forged indorsement thereon. Appellant contends that by a construction of this indictment with a number of others returned at the same time charging conspiracy and forgery, it appears from all these indictments construed together that the payee of the registered bond either indorsed or authorized the indorsement of the bonds and, consequently, argues that there is no forgery and therefore there could be no uttering of the forgery. These questions cannot be raised by writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Ruef, 150 Cal. 665, 89 P. 605; In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731, 8 S.Ct. 1263, 32 L.Ed. 274; Goto et al. v. Lane, 265 U.S. 393, 44 S.Ct. 525, 68 L.Ed. 1070.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 F.2d 995, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagoner-v-swope-ca9-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack