§ 200. Adjournments for want of a quorum.

§ 201. Preparatory orders made by less than a quorum.

§ 199. Terms.-The Supreme Court shall hold at the seat of government one term annually, commencing on the second Monday in October, and such adjourned and special terms as it may find necessary for the dispatch of business; and suits, proceedings, recognizances, and processes pending in or returnable to said court shall be tried, heard, and proceeded with as if the time of holding said sessions had not been hereby altered. (Rev. Stats.

sec. 684.)

of

a

$ 200. Adjournments for want quorum.—If at any session of the Supreme Court a quorum does not attend on the day appointed for holding it, the justices who do attend may adjourn the court from day to day for twenty days after said appointed time, unless there be sooner quorum. If the quorum does not attend within said twenty days, the business of the court s all be continued over till the next appointed session; and if during a term after a quorum has assembled less than that number attend on any day, the justices attending may adjourn the court from day

to day until there is a quorum, or may adjourn without day. (Rev. Stats., sec. 685.)

§ 201. Preparatory orders made by less than a quorum.-The justices attending at any term when less than a quorum is present may, within the twenty days mentioned in the preceding section, make all necessary orders touching any suit, proceeding, or process depending in or returned to the court, preparatory to the hearing, trial, or decision thereof. (Rev. Stats., sec. 686.)

§ 206.

Appeal from district and circuit courts, how regulated.

§ 207.

Appeals direct to Supreme Court from district and circuit courts-
In what allowed.

§ 212.

Cases where question of jurisdiction only reviewed, without reference to amount.

§ 217. When a Territory becomes a State after judgment or decree in

territorial court.

§ 218. Judgments and decrees of district courts in cases transferred from

territorial court.

§ 219. Judgments and decrees of supreme court of District of Columbia. Cases where matter in dispute exceeds one hundred dollars. Appeals from the court of claims.

§ 220.

§ 221.

$222. Time and manner of appeal from the court of claims.

§ 223.

Judgment and decrees of State courts on writs of error. § 224. Precedence of writs of error to State courts in criminal cases.

§ 202. Original jurisdiction.-The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature where a State is a party, except between a State and its citizens, or between a State and citizens of other States, or aliens, in which latter cases it shall have original,

but not exclusive jurisdiction. And it shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against embassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have consistently with the law of nations, and original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction of all suits brought by embassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul or vice-consul is a party. [See secs. 4063-4066.] (U. S. Const. art. iii, sec. 2, cl. 2; Rev. Stats., sec. 687.)

Note. See Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 411; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264; Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 735; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66; Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475.

In general.-The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction except that given by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 73.) An action without the limits prescribed is coram non judice, and its action a nullity. (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 15 Peters, 233; S. C., 12 Peters, 657.) A proceeding to obtain a mandamus is an action at law between the parties, and is not regarded as a prerogative writ. (Com. v. Dennison, 24 How. 66; Com. v. Boutwell, 12 Wall. 626.) The Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction where a private person, an alien, seeks to obtain redress for a wrong done him by another private person, who is a citizen. (Ex parte Barry, 2 How. 65.) So an indictment against a private person for an insult upon an embassador or public minister is not a case affecting such embassador or minister. (U. S. v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467.) In the absence of any legislation of Congress as to the process and mode of procedure where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, the court itself may prescribe the mode and form of procedure. (Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419; New Jersey v. New York, 5 Peters, 284; Com. v. Dennison, 24 How. 266.

This section defines the original jurisdiction of this court, and designates the subjects for its exercise where a State is complainant. (Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S 265.)

FED. PROC.-41.

Where State is party.-The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court refers to cases in which an original suit might be instituted in the Federal courts, and not to cases between a State and its citizens, or where a State is enforcing its penal laws. (Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264.) It must be a case in which the State is either nominally or substantially a party (Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 411); it must be a party on the record. (Bank v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904.) It has no original jurisdiction over suits brought by any other political division than a State of the Union (Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700); nor has it jurisdiction over questions of a political character. (State v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50; Cherokee Nation v. State, 5 Peters, 1.) So, an Indian tribe is not a foreign state, and cannot institute a suit in the Supreme Court. (Cherokee Nation v. State, 5 Peters, 1.) The Supreme Court is the arbiter of controversies between States (Chancely v. Bailey, 37 Ga. 532); as in questions of boundaries (Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660; Alabama v. Georgia, 23 How. 505; Virginia v. West Virginia, 11 Wall. 39; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Peters, 657; 15 Peters, 233), and the rules of practice and proceedings in such cases will be molded to bring it to final hearing on its real merits. (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 Peters, 210.) A private person cannot commence a suit against a State to recover the proceeds of property in its possession (Ex parte Madrazo, 7 Peters, 627); and the fact that land has been granted by and is claimed under a State does not make the State a party to the controversy between private persons concerning the land. (Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 411.) A State may bring an original suit against a citizen of another State, but not against one of its own, in the Supreme Court (Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 10 Wall. 553); nor can it prosecute a suit in the Supreme Court on the ground of any remote or contingent interest in itself (State v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 13 How. 518); nor file a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. (State v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475.) Where a State brings a suit, the bill is filed by the governor on behalf of the State. (Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402; Com. v. Dennison, 24 How. 266.) It may file a bill on a bond on which the