Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

its orders made of record, yet when it is by law authorized to appoint an agent, it is not necessary that all the acts of the agent should appear of record. (Bullitt County v. Washer, 130 U. S. 142.) As to the powers of court commissioners under the provisions of chap. 7 of the title Crimes, see United States v. Jones, 134 U. S. 483; see Rev. Stats. secs. 1982-1985.

§ 83 (628). Marshals not to be commissioners. No marshal, or deputy marshal, of any of the courts of the United States shall hold or exercise the duties of commissioner of any of the said courts. (Rev. Stats. sec. 628.

FED. PROC.-22.

§ 84.

§ 85.

CHAPTER VII.

CIRCUIT COURTS-JURISDICTION.

Jurisdiction, original and concurrent.

Citizens claiming lands under different State grants-Foreign citizens, etc.

[blocks in formation]

§ 93. Jurisdiction of cases transferred from district courts on account

[blocks in formation]

Jurisdiction,

$ 84. Circuit court original and concurrent.-The circuit courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiff's or petitioners, or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different States, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid. (Act of March, 1875, Rev. Stats. sec. 629; clause 1, as amended March 3, 1887, and corrected August 13, 1888, 25 U. S. Stats. 433.)

Power of the judiciary.-Judicial power means the power wit which courts are clothed, the power to render a judgmen; or decree. (U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Peters, 691; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Peters, 657) The judicial power is unavoidably, in some cases, exclusive of all State authority, and in others may be made so by legislation. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; The Moses. Taylor, 4 Wall. 411. Tae jurisdiction of the Federal courts depends exclusively on the Constitution and statutes passed in pursuance thereof. (Mossman v. Higginson, 4Dall. 12; Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch, 303; Bank v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61; Amer. Ins. Co. v. Carter, 1 Peters, 511; Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock. 203; U. S. v. Drennen, Hemp. 320; U. S. v. Alberty, Hemp. 444.) The Constitution defines the limits, and Congress prescribes how much of it is to be exercised. (Turner v. Bank, 4 Dall. 20; McIntyre v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504; Kendall v. U. S., 12 Peters, 616; Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 245; Clarke v. Jonesville, 4 Am. Law Reg. 593.) In the first three classes of cases named in this section-first, cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or treaties made under its authority; second, all cases affecting ambassadors, foreign ministers, and consuls; and third, all cases of admiralty and marine jurisdiction; the jurisdiction is exclusive (State v. McBride, Rice, 400); and in the latter class as to controversies, Congress may qualify the jurisdiction as either original or appellate. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411.) The Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, but inferior in the sense of the Constitution only in that judgments may be reviewed on appeal. (Turner v. Bank, 4 Dall. 9; U. S. v. Ta-wan-ga-ca, Hemp. 304; U. S. v. Hudson, 7 Cranch, 32; Matt. of Meador, 1 Abb. U. S. 321; Griswold v. Sedgwick, 1 Wend. 126; Byero v. Fowler, 12 Ark. 218; Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172; Nugent v. State, 18 A a. 52. They can exercise only the jurisdiction conferred on them by Congress (Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. C. C. 235; Magill v. Parsons, 4 Bonn. 317), or by treaty. (The British Prisoner, 1 Wood. & M. 66; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Wood. & M. 437; Smith v. Jackson, 1 Paine, 453.)

Circuit court.-The jurisdiction of the circuit court depends exclusively on the Constitution and laws of the United States (Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236; Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 44; Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393; Hubbard v. Northern R. R. Co., 3 Blatch f. 84; Bennett v. Bennett, Deady, 300; Karahow v. Adams, 1 Dill. 344; Wisconsin v. Duluth, 2 Dill. 406; Harrison v. Hadley, 2 Dill. 223; Smith v. Allyn, 1 Paine, 486; Livingston v. Van Ingen, 1 l'aine, 45; U. S. v. Terrel, Hemp. 411; U. S. v. Alberty, Hemp. 444; White v. Fenner, 1 Mason, 520; Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. C. C. 232; Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock. 203); and it cannot be affected by State legislation. (Persons v. Lyman, 5 Blatchf. 170; Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock. 203.) The jurisdiction of the circuit court is limited, and where it does not obtain, it is an inflexible rule that it cannot be exercised, even if both parties desire to have it exerted. (Railroad Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379; Vannersou v. Leverett, Cir. Ct. Ga., 31 Fed. Rep. 376.) The presumption is that a cause is without its jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears._ (Grace v. Am. Cent. Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 278; Peper v. Fordyce, 119 U. S. 469; Turner v. Bank, 4 Dall. 8; Livingston v. Van Ingen, 1 Paine, 45.) It is not irrespective of citizenship unless the subject-matter arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. (Dowell v. Griswold, 5 Sawy. 39.) A proceeding by way of attachment to enforce a judgment is a suit, and jurisdiction attaches if the creditor and garnishee are not citizens of the same State (Tunstall v. Worthington, Hemp. 652); but attachment cannot be sued out in an action where court has not jurisdiction of persons. (Exp. Ry. Co., 103 U. S. 795.) The circuit court may by habeas corpus bring up the body of a person imprisoned by a judgment of a courtmartial. (Barrett v. Hopkins, 2 McCrary, 129.) An application for mandamus cannot be made to the circuit court as an exercise of original jurisdiction, although the parties are citizens of different States. (McIntyre v. Woods, 7 Cranch, 504; McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 593; Bath Co. v. Amy, 13 Wall. 244; Graham v. Norton, 15 Wall. 427; Wheeling v. Mayor, 1 Hughes, 90; U. S. v. Smallwood, 1 Chic. L. N. 321.) In a suit to cancel a purely personal contract (not lien), circuit cou.t cannʊt ac

quire jurisdiction of a defendant unless he appear or there be personal service of process on him in the district; and if an infant, decree is void on its face. (Ins. Co. v. Bangs, 103 U. S. 435.) The circuit court has jurisdiction of an action in the name of a nominal plaintiff for the use of an alien (Brown v. Strode, 5 Cranch, 303); or the payee of a note for the use of a holder (Irvine v. Lowry, 14 Peters Adm. 293); or on a bond in the name of the marshal to the use of a citizen of another State (Huff v. Hutchinson, 14 How. 586); or on an official bond taken in the name of the governor to the use of a citizen injured by the officer's violation of duty. McNutt v. Bland, 2 How. 1.) The circuit court cannot reverse or set aside a decree of a State court which had complete jurisdiction over the parties and subject-matter. (Nougué v. Clapp, 101 U. S. 551.) It may take jurisdiction of causes affecting the property of a State in the hands of its agents, if within its jurisdiction, without requiring the State to be a party (Swasey v. N. C. Railroad Co.. 1 Hughes, 17); but has no jurisdiction to enjoin the enforcement of a State judgment against a bankrupt. (In re Lodi S. & L. Co., 5 Sawy. 236.) A declaration of insolvency will not prevent the judgment creditor of an administrator from filing a bill to obtain payment out of the assets which remain. (Union Bank v. Tolly, 18 How. 503.) So a distributee may file a bill to obtain his share of the estate (Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425; Chapman v. Borer, 1 Fed. Rep. 274); and a creditor may maintain an action to have the amount of the debt judicially ascertained (Kittredge v. Race, 92 U. S. 116); but he cannot institute an action against an administrator for a devastavit until compliance with State laws as to such action. (McGill v. Armour, 11 How. 142.) A Federal court cannot assume jurisdiction when the insolvent company is in the hands of a receiver of a State court. (Hamilton v. Choteau, 2 McCrary, 500.) A plainti.f may on motion obtain judgment against the marshal for money collected and not paid over (Gwin v. Breedlove, 2 How. 23); or he may file a bill to enjoin the marshal from the sale of his property. (Gibbs v. Usher, 1 Holmes, 310). A bill seeking an injunction to restrain proceedings at law may be entertained without regard to citizenship of the parties (St. Luke's Hospital v. Barclay, 3 Blatchf.

« AnteriorContinuar »