JURISDICTION. Suits on Debentures. Tenth. Of all suits by the assignee of any debenture for drawback of duties, issued under any law for the collection of duties against the person to whom such debenture was originally granted, or against any indorser thereof, to recover the amount of such debenture. [See s. 3039.] 2 Mar., 1799, c. 22, s. 80, v. 1, p. 687. Suits on account of Injuries by Conspirators in certain Cases. Eleventh. Of all suits authorized by law to be brought by any person for the recovery of damages on account of any injury to his person or property, or of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section nineteen hundred and eighty-five, Title, CIVIL RIGHTS." [See s. 1980.] 66 20 Apr., 1871, c. 22, s. 2. v. 17, p. 13. Suits to redress Deprivation of Rights secured by the Constitution and Laws to Persons within Jurisdiction of the United States.1 Twelfth. Of all suits at law or in equity authorized by law to be brought by any person to redress the deprivation, under color of any law, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right secured by any law of the United States to persons within the United States, to persons within the jurisdiction thereof. [See ss. 1977, 1979.] 9 April, 1866, c. 31, s. 3, v. 14, p. 27. 31 May, 1870, c. 114, ss. 16, 18, v. 16, p. 144. 20 April, 1871, c. 22, s. 1, v. 17, p. 13. Suits to recover Offices. Thirteenth. Of all suits to recover possession of any office, except that of elector of President or Vice-President, representative or delegate in Congress, or member of a state legislature, authorized by law 1 See sec. 3 of the Act of March 1, 1875. Supplement to Rev. Stat., p. 148. to be brought, wherein it appears that the sole question touching the title to such office arises out of the denial of the right to vote to any citizen offering to vote, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude: Provided, That such jurisdiction shall extend only so far as to determine the rights of the parties to such office by reason of the denial of the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and secured by any law, to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in all the states. [See s. 2010.] 31 May, 1870, c. 114, s. 23, v. 16, p. 146. 1 Mar., 1875, c. 114, s. 3. v. 18, p. 336. Suits for Removal of Officers holding contrary to the Fourteenth Fourteenth. Of all proceeding by the writ of quo warranto, prosecuted by any district attorney, for the removal from office of any person holding office, except as a member of Congress, or of a state legislature, contrary to the provisions of the third section of the fourteenth article of amendment of the Constitution of the United States. [See s. 1786.] 31 May, 1870, c. 114, s. 14, v. 16, p. 143. Suits by or against National Banks. Fifteenth. Of all suits by or against any association established under any law providing for national banking associations within the district for which the court is held. 3 June, 1864, c. 106, s. 57, v. 13, p. 116. 1. (Jan., 1831.) The District Court of the United States for the state of Alabama has not jurisdiction of suits instituted by the Bank of the United States. This jurisdiction is not given in the act of Congress establishing that court, nor is it conferred by the act incorporating the Bank of the United States. Bank of U. S. v. Martin, 5 Pet. 479. 2. (March, 1874.) A national bank cannot be sued in the federal courts outside of the district where it is located. Main, Assignee, &c. v. Second National Bank, 6 Biss. 26. 3. Manufacturers' National Bank v. Baack, 8 Blatchf. 137, approved. Ib. 4. The Practice Act of June 1, 1872, does not change this rule, nor enlarge the jurisdiction of the federal courts. 1b. Suits by Aliens for Torts in Violation of the Law of Nations, &c. Sixteenth. Of all suits brought by any alien for a tort "only" in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States. 24 Sept., 1789, c. 20, s. 9, v. 1, p. 76. 22 June, 1874, c. 391, s. 17, v. 18, p. 189. 19 Feb., 1875, c. 90, s. 7, v. 18, p. 331. Suits against Consuls and Vice-consuls. Seventeenth. Of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offenses above the description aforesaid. 24 Sept., 1789, c. 20, s. 9, v. 1, p. 76. 23 Aug. 1842, c. 188, v. 4, p. 517. 1. (April, 1838.) In the 2d section of the 3d article of the Constitution of the United States, it is declared, that, "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction:" Held, that this does not conflict with and render unconstitutional the act of Congress passed Sept. 24, 1789, sec. 9, giving jurisdiction to the District Court of the United States, in civil cases, against consuls and vice-consuls. Gittings v. Crawford, Taney's Dec. 1. 2. The grant of jurisdiction over a certain subject-matter to one court does not of itself imply that that jurisdiction is to be exclusive. Ib. 3. A consul is not entitled, by the laws of nations, to the immunities and privileges of an ambassador or public minister. He is liable to civil suits, like any other individual, in the tribunals of the country in which he resides. 1b. 4. (April, 1866.) The District Court has jurisdiction of a suit brought by an alien against the consul of his nation residing within the district, to recover the amount of official fees improperly exacted. Lorway v. Lousada, 1 Lowell, 77. 5. (March, 1868.) Held, that the courts of a state have no jurisdiction of suits against foreign consuls, but have jurisdiction of suits brought by them. Sagory v. Wissman, 2 Ben. 241. Jurisdiction in Bankruptcy. Eighteenth. The District Courts are constituted courts of bankruptcy, and shall have, in their respective districts, original jurisdiction in all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy. 2 Mar., 1867, c. 176, s. 1, v. 14, p. 517. 1. (Jan., 1844.) A bankrupt is bound to state, upon his schedule, the nature of a debt, if it be a fiduciary one. Should he omit to do so, he would be guilty of a fraud, and his discharge will not avail him; but if a creditor, in such case, proves his debt and receives a dividend from the estate, he is estopped from afterwards saying that his debt was not within the law. Chapman v. Forsyth, 2 How. 202. 2. But if the fiduciary creditor does not prove his debt, he may recover it afterwards, from the discharged bankrupt, by showing that it was within the exception of the act. Ib. 3. (Jan., 1845.) The District Court, when sitting in bankruptcy, has jurisdiction over liens and mortgages existing upon the property of a bankrupt, so as to inquire into their validity and extent, and grant the same relief which the state courts might or ought to grant. Ex parte Christy, 3 How. 292. 4. The control of the District Court over proceedings in the state courts, upon such liens, is exercised, not over the state courts themselves, but upon the parties, through an injunction or other appropriate proceeding in equity. Ib. 5. The design of the bankrupt act was to secure a prompt and effectual administration of the estate of all bankrupts, worked out by the courts of the United States, without the assistance of state tribunals. Ib. 6. In the case of a contested claim, the District Court has jurisdiction if resort be had to a formal bill in equity or other plenary proceeding; and also jurisdiction to proceed summarily. Ib. 7. (Jan., 1845.) The principles established in the case of Ex parte the City Bank of New Orleans, in the matter of Christy. assignee of Walden, renewed and confirmed. Norton v. Boyd, 3 How. 426. 8. But this court does not decide whether or not the jurisdiction of the District Court over all the property of a bankrupt, mortgaged or otherwise, is exclusive, so as to take away from the state courts in such cases. Ib. 9. (Jan., 1848.) The District Court of the United States, sitting in bankruptcy, had power to decree a sale of the mortgaged property of a bankrupt; and if there are more mortgages than one, and the proceeds of sale are insufficient to discharge. the eldest mortgage, the purchaser will hold the property free and clear of all incumbrances arising from the junior mortgage. Houston v. City Bank, 6 How. 486. 10. (Dec., 1857.) The District Court, which passed the decree in bankruptcy, can take cognizance of such a case. (Bill to annul or vacate a discharge for fraud.) Commercial Bank v. Buckner, 20 How. 108. 11. (Dec., 1871.) Where an assignee in bankruptcy claims a fund as the property of his bankrupt, which, some time before the bankruptcy, a firm, of which the bankrupt was a member, transferred to a third party, and which the transferee now claims. adversely to the assignee, the proceedings in the District Court should not be summary and under the first section of the Bankrupt Act, but formal, and under the second clause of the third section. Smith v. Mason, 14 Wall. 419. 12. (Dec., 1872.) The District Court sitting in bankruptcy has no jurisdiction to proceed by rule to take goods seized, before any act of bankruptcy by the lessees, for rent due by them, in Louisiana, under "a writ of provisional seizure,” — and then in the hands of the sheriff, and held by him as a pledge for the payment of rent due,-out of his hands, and to deliver them to the assignee in bankruptcy, to be disposed of under the orders of the bankrupt court; neither the sheriff nor the lessor having been parties to the proceedings in bankruptcy, nor served with process to make them such. Marshall v. Knor, 16 Wall. 551. 13. (Oct., 1874.) When an assignee in bankruptcy voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of a state court, and that court renders judgment against him, it is too late for him to allege that the federal courts alone have jurisdiction in bankruptcy. Scott v. Kelley, 22 Wall. 57. 14. (Oct., 1874.) A proceeding under the Bankrupt Act, in which, by petition in form, the assignee sets forth articulately, that A., B., C., &c., claim liens against the bankrupt's estate, the validity of each of which liens he, the assignee, denies, and in which he prays that the parties setting up the liens may be made parties, and be required to answer, each of them, all his charges |