Foster v. Kansas ex Rel. Johnston
112 U.S. 201 (1884)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Foster v. Kansas ex Rel. Johnston, 112 U.S. 201 (1884)

Foster v. Kansas ex Rel. Johnston

Submitted October 14, 1884

Decided October 27, and November 10, 1884

112 U.S. 201

Syllabus

A writ of error operates as a supersedeas only from the time of the lodging of the writ in the office of the clerk where the record to be examined remains.

§ 1007 Rev.Stat., concerning stay of execution does not apply to judgments of highest state courts. Doyle v. Wisconsin,94 U. S. 50, affirmed.

When a judgment of a state court removes a state officer and thereby vacates the office, and a writ of error from this Court is allowed for the reversal of that judgment, one appointed to the vacancy with knowledge of the granting of the writ of error on the part of the judge of the supreme court of the state making the appointment, but before the filing of the writ in the clerk's office where the record remains, is guilty of no contempt of this Court in assuming to perform the duties of the office.

A state law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129, and Beer Co. v. Massachusetts,97 U. S. 25, affirmed.

Information in the nature of quo warranto is a civil proceeding in Kansas. Ames v. Kansas,111 U. S. 449, affirmed.

A state statute regulating proceedings for removal of a person from a state office is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States if it provides for bringing the party into court, notifies him of the case he has to meet, allows him to be heard in defense, and provides for judicial deliberation and determination. Kennard v. Louisiana,92 U. S. 480, affirmed.

Page 112 U. S. 202

The suit below was a proceeding to remove Foster from the office of Attorney General of the Kansas. Judgment for removal, to reverse which a writ of error was sued out. The defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ for want of jurisdiction, and coupled the motion with a motion to affirm under the judgment. After the writ of error and supersedeas were obtained from this Court, but before presentation in the court below, one Moore was appointed successor to Foster and assumed the duties of the office. The other facts connected with the appointment and assumption of office appear in the opinion. The counsel for the plaintiff in error obtained a rule against Moore to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt in violating the supersedeas. The two motions were heard together.

Page 112 U. S. 203

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.