A person is not denied the equal protection of the laws nor
deprived of liberty without clue process of law in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution by being tried and
sentenced to imprisonment by a judge who, although appointed by the
governor without authority, is a judge
de facto of a court
de jure by the law of the state as declared by its highest
court.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was a writ of error to review a judgment of the Supreme
Court of the State of Wisconsin denying to Patrick Manning a writ
of habeas corpus to discharge him from the
Page 139 U. S. 505
custody of the warden of the state prison under a sentence of
the Municipal Court for Ashland County. 76 Wis. 365. The case was
this:
By the statute of Wisconsin of 1889, c. 94, § 1, "A municipal
court for the City and County of Ashland is hereby established,
under the name of the Municipal Court for Ashland County," which
"shall be a court of record, have a clerk and a seal," and "may
exercise powers and jurisdiction equal to, and concurrent with, the
circuit court of Ashland County in all cases of crimes and
misdemeanors arising in said county except murder and rape,"
besides other jurisdiction, criminal and civil.
By § 4,
"The qualified voters of the County of Ashland shall, on the
first Tuesday in April, 1889, and on the first Tuesday of April
every fourth year thereafter, elect a suitable person to the office
of judge of said municipal court, to be called municipal judge, who
shall hold his office for the term of four years from the first
Monday in January next succeeding his election, and until his
successor shall be elected and qualified. . . . Whenever a vacancy
shall happen in the office of said judge, the governor shall fill
such vacancy by appointment. The person so appointed shall hold the
office until his successor shall be elected and qualified."
By § 11, "This act shall take effect and be in force from and
after its passage and publication." It was approved by the governor
March 14, and published March 15, 1889.
The first election of judge of the Municipal Court for Ashland
County was held on April 2, 188 9, when L. A. Calkins was elected
for the term of four years beginning the first Monday of January,
1890, and on April 4, 1889, the governor appointed him judge of
that court "for the term ending the first Monday of January,
1890."
In that court, held by said Calkins as judge, the petitioner was
in August, 1889, charged with manslaughter, tried and convicted in
October, and sentenced on November 9, 1889, to imprisonment at hard
labor in the state prison for three years, and was held by the
warden under that sentence.
It was contended in his behalf that at the time of his trial
Page 139 U. S. 506
506 and sentence, there was no such court in existence as the
Municipal Court for Ashland County; that the governor had no
authority to appoint a judge of that court before the first Monday
of January, 1890; that before that date, there was no judge,
de
jure or
de facto, of that court; that the court which
tried and sentenced him had no jurisdiction, and that he had been
denied the equal protection of the laws, and deprived of his
liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, as appears by its opinion
delivered in a similar case decided at the same time and referred
to in its opinion in this case, denied the writ of habeas corpus
because, assuming that the governor had no authority to make, when
he did, the appointment of Calkins as judge of the Municipal Court
for Ashland County, yet that court was established and in legal
existence from and after the publication of the statute of 1889, c.
94, on March 15, 1889, and by the law of Wisconsin, as declared in
a long series of decisions, it was a settled rule that
"if the office has been lawfully established, and a person
exercises the functions thereof by color of right, but whose
election or appointment thereto is illegal, his official acts
therein cannot be successfully attacked in collateral proceedings,
but in all such proceedings will be valid and binding until the
officer is ousted by the judgment of a court in a direct proceeding
to try his title to the office,"
and that Calkins at the time of the proceedings against the
petitioner was, "at least judge
de facto of such court."
In re Burke, 76 Wis. 357, 363.
The cases cited fully support that position.
See especially
In re Boyle, 9 Wis. 264;
Dean v. Gleason, 16 Wis. 1;
Chicago & Northwestern Railway v. Langdale County, 56
Wis. 614;
Yorty v. Paine, 62 Wis. 154.
It must therefore be taken as conclusively settled that by the
law of Wisconsin at the time of the trial and sentence of the
petitioner, the court in which he was tried and sentenced was a
court
de jure, and the judge who tried and sentenced him
was at least judge
de facto, and the sentence itself
was
Page 139 U. S. 507
valid, and there is no ground on which this Court can hold that
sentence, or the imprisonment under it, to be a violation of the
Constitution of the United States.
Norton v. Shelby
County, 118 U. S. 425;
In re Graham, 138 U. S. 461;
In re Duncan, 139 U. S. 449.
Judgment affirmed.