Supreme Court of the United States, 1894

Pepke v. Cronan

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 29, 1894 · The Chief Justice:

155 U.S. 100; 15 S. Ct. 34; 39 L. Ed. 84; 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2253 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Marshall A, Spooner, (with whom was Mr. Armstrong Taylor on the brief,) for appellant., Mr. Wiliam A. Standish, Attorney General of the State of North Dakota, for appellee. , ■

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Dowd (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado 1904)
Morton v. Henderson (5th Cir. 1941)
Novotny v. Ragen (7th Cir. 1937)
Hale v. Crawford (1st Cir. 1933)
Fay v. Noia (Supreme Court of the United States 1963)
Darr v. Burford (Supreme Court of the United States 1950)
In re Wyman (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1904)
Tinsley v. Anderson (Supreme Court of the United States 1898)
Urquhart, Sheriff, v. Brown (Supreme Court of the United States 1907)
Urquhart v. Brown (Supreme Court of the United States 1907)
Wimbish v. Jamison (Supreme Court of the United States 1905)
Minnesota v. Brundage (Supreme Court of the United States 1901)
In re Bitting (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 1901)
In re Marshall (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 1900)
Markuson v. Boucher (Supreme Court of the United States 1899)
United States v. Coal Dealers' Ass'n of California (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1898)
In re Huse (9th Cir. 1897)
Ex parte Keeler (S.C. 1896)
Andrews v. Swartz (Supreme Court of the United States 1895)
Chappell v. Waterworth (Supreme Court of the United States 1894)

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

The Chief Justice:

It was insisted upon the argument that the judgment in contempt was not appealable; State v. Davis, 2 North Dakota, 461; but it was conceded that the validity of the law and of thp sentence could be tested by the Supreme Court of the State on certiorari or habeas corpus, and no reason was suggested why, if the judgment of the District Court was the final judgment of the highest court of the State in which a decision in the matter could be had, a writ of error from this court might not be applied for.

Without considering the merits of the questions discussed, the judgment must be affirmed upon the authority of Ex parte Fonda, 117 U. S. 516; In re Wood, 140 U. S. 278; Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183; New York v. Eno, ante, 89, and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

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