EX PARTE: HITZ, PETITIONER
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.
Hitz, a political agent of the Swiss Confederation, sought a writ of certiorari to review a lower court decision regarding his claim to customs privileges as a foreign official. The Supreme Court denied the petition because a writ of certiorari sought by a defendant is discretionary rather than a matter of right, and the Court found insufficient evidence in the Department of State records to establish Hitz's official status warranting such extraordinary relief.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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 (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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Chapman v. St. Stephens Protestant Episcopal, 105 Fla. 683 (Fla. 1931)…57 Cal. 147; Rud v. Brd. of Com’rs of Pope County, 66 Minn. 358, 68 N. W. Rep. 1062, 69 N. W. Rep. 886; Ah Lep v. Gong Choy, 13 Oregon 429, 11 Pac. Rep. 72; Underhill v. Town of Jericho, 66 Vt. 183, 28 Atl. 879; Killian v. Ebbinghaus, 111 U. S. 798, 28 L. Ed. 592, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 698; Thomas v. Thomas, 27 Okla. 784, 109 Pac. Rep. 825, 113 Pac. Rep. 1058, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 124. [*706] The rule above quoted rests largely upon the doctrine that when the reviewing court regularly, without inadvertence or fraud…
-
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962)…statutes designed to assure American neutrality have [*213] become operative. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1, 63, 66. Still again, though it is the executive that determines a person’s status as representative of a foreign government, Ex parte Hitz, 111 U. S. 766, the executive’s statements will be construed where necessary to determine the court’s jurisdiction, In re Baiz, 135 U. S. 403. Similar judicial action in the absence of a recognizedly authoritative executive declaration occurs in cases involving t…
-
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1964)…immunity), Ex parte Muir, 254 U. S. 522; Ex parte Peru, 318 U. S. 578; the territorial boundaries of a foreign state, Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202; and the authorization of its representatives for state-to-state negotiation, Ex parte Hitz, 111 U. S. 766; In re Baiz, 135 U. S. 403. “[T]he Government of the United States considers this law to be manifestly in violation of those principles of international law which have long been accepted by the free countries of the West. It is in its essence discr…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence