Supreme Court of the United States, 1884

Ex Parte Hitz

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 5, 1884 · Waite

111 U.S. 766; 4 S. Ct. 698; 28 L. Ed. 592; 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1832 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. O. D. Barrett and Mr. Benjamin F. Butler for petitioner., Mr. R. Ross Perry and Mr. A. S. Worthington opposing.

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Ibrahim Ahmed Al-Hamdi, United States of America v. Ibrahim Ahmed Al-Hamdi (4th Cir. 2004)
Tachiona v. United States (2d Cir. 2004)
Tachiona v. United States (2d Cir. 2004)
United States v. Guinand (District Court, District of Columbia 1988)
Farnsworth v. Sanford (5th Cir. 1940)
United States v. Al-Hamdi (4th Cir. 2004)
Bertram Zweibon v. John N. Mitchell, Individually and as Attorney General of the United States of America (D.C. Cir. 1975)
Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino (Supreme Court of the United States 1964)
Baker v. Carr (Supreme Court of the United States 1962)
Greyerbiehl v. Hughes Electric Co. (8th Cir. 1923)
Portland Gold Mining Co. v. Duke (8th Cir. 1908)
Roberto Moncada v. Marco A. Rubio (9th Cir. 2025)
Long v. Steepro (7th Cir. 2001)
Chapman v. St. Stephens Protestant Episcopal, Church, Inc. (Fla. 1931)
United States v. Merck & Co. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1917)
United States v. Dickinson (Supreme Court of the United States 1909)
Whitney v. Dick (Supreme Court of the United States 1906)
Iasigi v. Van De Carr (Supreme Court of the United States 1897)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the ^.pinion of the court. He stated the facts in the foregoing language and continued:

Precisely what the relations of Mr. Hitz to the United States were as' Political Agent of the Swiss Confederation we have not been advised, and on application to the Department of State, made on the suggestion of the court by the counsel in this proceeding, we are informed that the records of the department show nothing upon this subject except a letter from him under date of March,30th, 1868, enclosing his letter of credence, and soliciting an interview with the Secretary of State for its formal presentation; the answer of Secretary Seward according such an interview, and fixing the 2d of April as the time; and a letter from Secretary Fish to Mr. Hitz, under date of June 28th, 1870, informing him that he *768 (the Secretary) did not find in his relations to the United States-any ground for continuing the privilege to him of a free entry of goods imported for his use.

Under these circumstances, as the writ of certiorari, when applied for - by a defendant, is not a writ of right, but discretionary With the court (Bac. Ab. Certiorari A), we deny this application, leaving the parties to such remedies as they may be entitled to elsewhere, or under any other form of proceeding.

Petition dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.