After a lapse of twenty years, a judgment is presumed to be satisfied -Cope v. Humphreys, 14 Serg. & Rawle, 15.

Although a levy under an execution on property, sufficient to satisfy the same, is ordinarily a satisfaction of the judgment, yet it is not so when the property is fraudulently withdrawn by the defendant from the possession of the officer.-Mickles et al. v. Hoskins, 11 Wendell, 125.

Where, on an execution in an action of debt on judgment, sufficient is levied to satisfy the original judgment, the plaintiff must apply the money levied in satisfaction of such judgment, although there be not enough to discharge the costs as well as the debts recovered in the second judgment.-Harvey v. Wood, 5 Wendell, 221.

A levy on a sufficient personal property to satisfy a judgment, though the execution be returned unsatisfied, by the direction of the plaintiff, or the assignee of the judgment, extinguishes the judgment; and a sale of lands under a subsequent execution thereon, is void.—Jackson v. Bowen, 7 Cowen, 13. Ex parte Lawrence, 4 Cowen, 417.

Where a sufficient levy is once made, the sheriff cannot make a second levy.-Hoyt v. Hudson, 12 Johns. Rep., 288. Ontario Bank v. Hallett, 8 Cowen, 192. Flagg v. Dryden, 7 Pick. Rep., 52.

A discharge of the debtor from arrest on execution, extinguishes the judgment, and, though the discharge be after judgment, against the bail, he is also discharged.-Lathrop v. Briggs, 8 Cowen, 171. Craig v. Turner, 6 Johns. Rep., 51. Lewis v. Garnage, 1 Pick. Rep., 347.

Where the property of the defendant, sold under execution, brings a sum equal to or greater than the amount of the judgment, the plaintiff in such judgment can no longer be considered as a judgment creditor.Forsyth v. Clark, 3 Wendell, 634.

2. What is the rule as to the sheriff's right to sell property for the purpose of collecting his fees, after notice that the judgment has been satisfied?

That he has no right to sell; he must look to the plaintiff or his attorney for them.-Jackson v. Anderson, 4 Wendell, 474.

A justice who issues a second execution, after the first has been satisfied, will be held a trespasser, though the second execution was issued through the false representation of the plaintiff, that the first was lost.Lewis v. Palmer, 6 Wendell, 368.

An execution issued upon a judgment which has been satisfied, is absolutely void, so that a purchaser under it acquires no title.-Jackson v. Cadwell, 1 Cowen, 602. Woodcock v. Bennett, Ibid., 711. Jackson v. Anderson, 4 Wendell, 474. Swan v. Saddlemire, 8 Wendell, 681.

A judgment is the highest evidence of debt, and the title merges in the judgment; but proof of its discharge may be made by presumptive evidence, as well as by positive proof.-Abat v. Buisson, 9 Lou. Rep. 418

JURISDICTION.

1. What is meant by jurisdiction?

It means the power of him who has the right to judge; or sometimes that word means also the space or extent of country over which the judge is entitled to exercise that power.-Lou. Code of Practice, art. 76. 1 N. S. Mar. Rep., 704. 3 Ib. 91.

Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between parties to a suit; to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them.-Rhode Island v. Mass., 12 Peters' S. C. Reports,

657.

2. How is jurisdiction primarily divided?

Into civil and criminal jurisdiction.

3. What is comprehended under civil jurisdiction?

It extends to all civil matters, and criminal jurisdiction comprises whatever relates to crimes and misdemeanors.-Lou. Code of Practice, art. 80.

4. What is meant by degrees of jurisdiction?

The different tribunals before which a suit may be successively pleaded, and the rules established for proceeding in an inferior jurisdiction previous to taking the suit before a superior jurisdiction.-Wood's Civil Law, lib. 4, ch. 1, p. 292.

5. What is meant by general jurisdiction?

Judges having general jurisdiction are those who, in virtue of the law, take cognizance in all matters but such as are specially excepted from their jurisdiction.

Judges having special jurisdiction are such as have an exclusive jurisdiction in certain cases pointed out by law.-Lou. Code of Practice, art. 81.

In matters of jurisdiction, the right given to a judge to take cognizance of certain causes is termed competency.

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.

The judiciary power of the United States is granted, or rather limited, by the 3d article of the constitution, of which sec. 1st declares that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. By section 2d, it is declared that the judicial power shall

extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; the cases affecting ambassadors, or other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to all controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states; between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states; between citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state and the citizens thereof, and foreign states' itizens or subjects. By an amendment of the constitution, adopted February 5, 1798, it is declared that the judicial powers of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit at law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of the United States, or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. This amendment does not apply to controversies between two or more states, or between a state and foreign states, or suits brought by a state against citizens of a different state. But a state cannot, in any case, go into the courts of the United States to enforce its own penal laws.-New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall., 3. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat., 399.

7th Article of Amendments of the Constitution provides that, in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.

OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES.

1. In what cases has the supreme court original jurisdiction?

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and con suls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shali have original jurisdiction.—Const., Art. 3, Sec. 2. Towler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall., 411.

The original jurisdiction of the supreme court is very limited, and it has been decided that Congress has no power to extend it.--Marbury v. Madison, Cranch, 137. 1 Kent's Com., 314.

The Cherokee nation of Indians are not a state within this provision, and therefore the supreme court has not jurisdiction in the matter of a bill filed by that nation against the state of Georgia, praying for an injunc tion to prevent the execution of certain laws passed by the state of Georgia, relative to lands within the boundaries of the lands of the Cherokee nation. The Cherokee nation v. State of Georgia, 4 Peters' S. C. Rep., 1.

2. In what cases has the supreme court exclusive jurisdiction?

By the act of 24th September, 1789 (known as the Judicial Act), sec. 13, 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; and except also between a state and citizens of other states; or aliens ; in which latter case, it shall have original, but not exclusive jurisdiction. And shall have, exclusively, all such jurisdiction. of suits or proceedings against ambassadors or other public ministers, or their domestics or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations.

3. To what course does the practice in the supreme court conform?

At August term, 1792, the court ruled, that they considered the practice of the King's Bench and Chancery in England, as affording outlines for the practice of this court; and that they would from time to time make such alterations therein as circumstances might render necessary.-4 Dall., 339.

The Act of March 2, 1793, sec. 7, provides, that it shall be lawful for the several courts of the United States, from time to time, as occasion may require, to make rules and orders for their respective courts, directing the returning of writs and processes, the filing of declarations and other pleadings, the taking of rules, the entering and making of judg ments by default, and other matters in the vacation-and otherwise, in a manner not repugnant to the laws of the United States, to regulate the practice of the said courts respectively, as shall be fit and necessary for the advancement of justice, and especially to that end, to prevent delay in proceedings.

4. What is the rule as to the authority of the supreme court to declare a state law void, on account of its collision with the state constitution? It has been decided that it has no such authority. The case is not embraced in the Judiciary Act.-Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Peters' S. C. Reports, 288.

5. How may process be served upon a state?

It has been held that the delivery of the writ to the Governor and Attorney-General is good service.-Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall., 419. Huger v. South Carolina, 3 Ib. 339. New Jersey v. New York, 5 Peters' S. C. Rep., 284.

6. How may a state appear?

By her Attorney-General, or a special solicitor; and a demurrer signed by the Attorney-General of a state, as such, is an answer and appearance for the state.-New Jersey v. New York, 6. Peters' S. C. Rep., 327.

7. Upon what does the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court depend?

Upon the third article of the constitution, sec. 2, which provides that in all the cases aforementioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as Congress shall make.

In the construction of this clause it has been held, that it vests in the supreme court an appellate jurisdiction. in all cases where original jurisdiction is given to the inferior courts, with only such exceptions, and under such regulations as Congress may make.-Wilson v. Mason, 1 Cranch, 22. Serg.'s Const. Law, 33. The appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court exists only in those cases in which it is affirmatively given. -Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall., 321. Clark v. Bazadone, 1 Cranch, 212. In the last case it was urged that the judicial power extended to all cases under the constitution, and that where the supreme court had not original, it had appellate jurisdiction, with such exceptions and regulations as Congress should make; and that the appellate power was derived from the constitution, and must be full and complete, in all cases appertaining to the federal judiciary, where Congress had not by law interfered and controlled it by exceptions and regulations. The court, however, adhered to the doctrine which they had before laid down, and proceeded upon the principle that, though the appellate powers of the court were given by the constitution, they were limited entirely by the judiciary statutes, which are to be understood as making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the court, and to imply a negative in the exercise of such power, in every case but those in which it is affirmatively given and described by statute. -Durousseau v. The United States, 6 Cranch, 307. United States v. Moore, 3 Ibid., 159. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheaton, 38. Ex parte T. Watkins, 7 Peters' S. C. Rep., 568.

A writ of error does not lie to remove a civil cause from the circuit court to the supreme court, which has been carried to the circuit court from the district court, by writ of error.-United States v. Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 108. United States v. Gordon, 7 Cranch, 287. United States v. Tenbrock, 2 Wheaton, 248. United States v. Barker, 2 Wheaton, 395. Wiscart v. Dauchy, 4 Dall., 321.

8. What is the rule as to the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court in criminal matters?.

That no writ of error lies from the supreme court to the circuit court in criminal cases.-The United States v. Moore, 3 Cranch, 159. United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall., 297. The only mode in which such cases can be removed is, by certificate that the opinions of the judges are opposed.-Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheaton, 42.

9. What is provided in regard to the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court of the United States, over judgments of the state courts ?

The 25th sec. of the .udiciary Act of 1789 provides, that a final judgment or decree in any suit, in the highest court of law or equity of a state in which a decision could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute, or of authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or authority exercised under any state, on the ground of being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of such their validity: or