In re Eckart
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Winslow, J.
The petitioner was tried for murder, April 10, 1878, upon an information charging, generally, wilful and felonious murder with malice aforethought. A simple verdict of guilty was rendered, not specifying any degree, upon which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He now asks for a writ of habeas corpus, and for his discharge from imprisonment thereon, because he claims that *682 no judgment could lawfully be pronounced on the verdict, under the law as settled in Hogan v. State, 30 Wis. 428 , and Allen v. State, ante, p. 22. It seems that the judgment was erroneous under these cases, but that fact does not authorize his discharge upon habeas corpus. The court had jurisdiction of the person and of the offense, but made a mistake in the judgment. Habeas corpus reaches only jurisdictional defects, and there is no such defect here. The case is ruled by the case of In re Graham, 74 Wis. 450 .
By the Court.— Writ denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.