WARD
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ward was convicted in Maryland state court of selling merchandise without a license, in violation of state law. The Supreme Court denied Ward's motion to advance the case, finding that the motion was not supported by the relevant federal statute and that the court saw no reason to exercise its discretion to grant it under its procedural rules, particularly since Ward was not incarcerated.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.
Motion to advance the cause filed by the plaintiff' in error. Indictment. The parties agreed that the defendant on the day and at the place named in the indictment did sell the articles of merchandise therein named without obtaining a license, as required by the laws of the State. Plea not guilty. Issue tried by court. Finding for the State. He moves the court to advance the cause.
Clearly the motion is not within the act of Congress of the thirtieth of June, 1870, as the motion is not filed by the State, nor by a party claiming under the laws of the State.*
Probably it is made under the thirtieth rule of the court, which provides that criminal cases may be advanced by leave of the court, on motion of either party. Under that rule the motion is addressed to the discretion of the court, and inasmuch as it appears that the defendant is not in jail, the court fails to see any reason for granting the motion.
Motion denied.
*
16 Stat. at Large, 176.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1894)…o Avhich reference was made, abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as such privileges and immunities are defined in the Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall. 36; and in Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35; and Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 163. The writ of error is, therefore, Dismissed.…
-
Valle v. Stengel, 176 F.2d 697 (3d Cir. 1949)…It is clear that the Supreme Court has held that the words “Privileges and Immunities” of Article IV, Section 2, protect the right of a citizen to engage in lawful commerce, trade or business without molestation or harassment. See Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 163, 79 U.S. 418, 430, 20 L.Ed. 260. The “Privileges and Immunities” clause also guarantees the right of the individual citizen to engage in the pursuit of happiness. Paul v. Virginia, supra. The field of human rights covered by the privileges and immu…1 / 2
-
Hunn v. Lewis, 25 F.2d 271 (8th Cir. 1928)…risdictional (In re T. E. Hill Co. [C. C. A.] 148 F. 832; Nome & Sinook Co. v. Ames Co. [C. C. A.] 187 F. 928); and the citation may be waived by general appearance or by acceptance of service of a defective citation (Bigler v. Waller, 12 Wall. 142, 20 L. Ed. 260; Tripp v. Santa Rosa Street R. R., 144 U. S. 126, 129, 12 S. Ct. 655, 36 L. Ed. 371). See Goodwin v. Fox, 120 U. S. 775, 7 S. Ct. 779, 30 L. Ed. 815. We think that by acceptance of service of the citation and by general appearance there was a waiver…