Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/165

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page needs to be proofread.

z lmr YOUNG. 09 U.S. Argument for Respondent. Fed. Rep. 199; Coneter v. Weir, 127 Fed. Rep. 897; Cov2t v. Fargo, 127 Fed. P, ep. 912; Hilcheen v. Smith, 140 Fed. Rep. 983; Smith v. A/exander, 146 .Fed. Rep. 106; Tph Co. v. Anderson, 154 Fed. Rep. 95. By leave of court, Mr. Edward B. Whitn filed a brief herein as amicus curitr, in,support of petitioner's contentions as to the Eleventh Amendment. With him on this brief was Mr. Abd E. B/ackmar. Mr. Charles W. Blmn, Mr. Jared How and Mr. J. F. McGee, with whom Mr. Frank B. Kellogg, Mr. Cordenia A. Mr. Robert E. Olds, Mr. Stiles W. Burr, M. Pierc Burly-, Mr. William D. Mitchell and Mr. William A. Lanvazter were on the briefs, for respondent: The obiections which petitioner makes against the validity of the iniunctional order re matters which nnot he inquired into on writ of ha/as corp. Where the contempt, the punishment for which is under revi ew in a habo corp proceeding, consist of the violation of an order or decree of a court, the commitment will be sus- tained unless it is found that the order or decree disobeyed wa absolutely 'void because the court wa wholly without jurisdiction or power to make it. The proceeding being in the nature of a collateral attack upon the order or judgmen which has been disobeyed, the inquiry 'is limited to the question of U.S. 731, 757; In re Wf2on, 140 U.S. 575, 583. Among the very numerous cases which deal with this ques- tion the following are most nearly in point: Ez trte Watkins, U. 8. 731, 756; I e Wi/on, 140 U.S. 575, 582; Iri re Del- gado, 140 U. 8. 586; In re Sdmeid, 148 U.S. 162; In re Fred- -/ch, 149 U.S. 70, 76; In re T!l, 149 U. $van, 150 U.S. 637, 648; In re Chapman, 156 U.S. 211; In Lnon, 166 U. g. 548: Iv re McKenzie, 180 U. 8. 536.