From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Hamilton

U.S.
Oct 15, 1883
109 U.S. 63 (1883)

Summary

In United States v. Hamilton, 109 U.S. 63, 3 S.Ct. 9, 27 L.Ed. 857, the court said: "As a motion to quash is always addressed to the discretion of the court, a decision upon it is not error, and cannot be reviewed on a writ of error."

Summary of this case from Kempe v. United States

Opinion

ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION BETWEEN THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE.

Submitted October Term, 1882. Decided October 15th, 1883.

Practice This court will not take cognizance of a division of opinion between the judges of a circuit court on a motion to quash an indictment.


The certificate of division in this case was made on a division in opinion between the judges on a motion to quash the indictment. As a motion to quash is always addressed to the discretion of the court, a decision upon it is not error, and cannot be reviewed on a writ of error. In the case of United States v. Rosenburgh, 7 Wall. 580, we decided the precise point, that this court cannot take cognizance of a division of opinion between the judges of a circuit court upon a motion to quash an indictment. This decision was re-affirmed in United States v. Avery, 13 Wall. 251, and in United States v. Canda, decided at October term 1881.

The case, not being properly before us, is dismissed.


Summaries of

United States v. Hamilton

U.S.
Oct 15, 1883
109 U.S. 63 (1883)

In United States v. Hamilton, 109 U.S. 63, 3 S.Ct. 9, 27 L.Ed. 857, the court said: "As a motion to quash is always addressed to the discretion of the court, a decision upon it is not error, and cannot be reviewed on a writ of error."

Summary of this case from Kempe v. United States
Case details for

United States v. Hamilton

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES v . HAMILTON

Court:U.S.

Date published: Oct 15, 1883

Citations

109 U.S. 63 (1883)

Citing Cases

United States v. Holmes

He does not contend that the grand jury was illegally constituted. Even if we were to assume arguendo that…

United States v. Basiliko

These we will not discuss in detail; we say only that in them we find no conflict with what we here decide.…