Hendrix v. United States

Citations

• 219 U.S. 79
• 31 S. Ct. 193
• 55 L. Ed. 102
• 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1620

Syllabus

<p>The United States court at a particular place named is a sufficient designation of the only court of the United States held at that place, which has jurisdiction of the case; and an order transmitting a case under the act .of June 28, 1898, c. 517, 30 Stat. 511, to the United States court at Paris, Texas, is sufficient to transfer the case to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas, and to give that-court jurisdiction. •</p> <p>Where the record is not here, and the jurisdictional facts are admitted, and the order recited that the court' was well advised in the premises, this court will not hold that the court to which the case was removed on petition of plaintiff in error himself did not acquire jurisdiction because the petition did not state all the jurisdictional facts required by the statute authorizing the removal.</p> <p>While the repeal of a statute giving special jurisdiction to a court may operate to deprive that court of the jurisdiction so conferred, the mere enactment of a subsequent statute which obviates future application of the earlier statute does not amount to its repeal or affect jurisdiction already acquired.</p> <p>The provisions of the Oklahoma enabling act of June 16,1906, c. 3385, 34 Stat. 267, as amended March 4,1907, c. 2911,34 Stat. 1287, transferring criminal cases pending in the United States courts of the Indian Territory to the courts of Oklahoma, did not repeal the act of June 28, 1898, c. 517,30 Stat, 511, or affect cases which had already been transferred under that act to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.</p> <p>In this cas e'held that it was not error for the trial court to refuse to allow the wife of one accused of murder to testify. Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263.</p> <p>There was no error on the part of the trial court in denying a motion for a new trial based on affidavits of some of the jurors that they agreed to the verdict on the understanding betw