« AnteriorContinuar »
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 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 ? 2010.) 31 May, 1870, c. 114, s. 23, v. 16, p. 146.
Suits for removal of officers. Fourteenth. Of all proceedings by the writ of quo warranto, prosecuted by any district attorney, for the removal from office of any person holding office, except as a momber 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 1786.)
31 May, 1870, c. 114, s. 14, v. 16, p. 143; 28 Feb., 1871, c. 99, s. 15,-. 16, p. 438.
Suits under laws to enforce elective franchise.-Fifteenth. Of all suits to recover pecuniary forfeitures under any act to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States.
31 May, 1870, c. 114, ss. 2, 3, 4, 8, v. 16, pp. 140, 141, 142; 27 Feb., 1871, c. 90, s. 15, v. 16, p. 438.
Suits to redress deprivation of rights.-Sixteenth. Of all suits authorized by law to be brought by any person to redress the deprivation, under color of any law, statute, 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 providing for equal rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. [See 22 1977, 1979.]
20 April, 1871, c. 22, s. 1, v. 17, p. 13; 31 May, 1870, c. 114, ss. 16, 18, v. 16, p. 114; 9 April, 1866, c. 31, s. 3, v. 14, p. 27.
The act of congress of March 1, 1875, to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights, so far as it seeks to inflict penalties for a violation of rights which belong to citizens of a State, as distinguished from citizens of the United States, was the exercise of a power not authorized by the Constitution of the United States.
The privilege of using for local travel any public conveyance, is in genreal a right which belongs to a person or a citizen of a State, and not as a citizen of the United States, and a denial of that privilege (except where it is charged in the pleadings and proved in evidence to have been on account of race, color, etc.), does not subject to the penalties of said act of congress. Cully v. Baltimore & 0. R. CO., 1 Hughes, 536. See, also, The Civil Rights Bill, Id., 541, for an explanation of the legislation of congress, with special reference to the rights of colored persons at inns in North Carolina. (1875).
For a construction of the act of May 31, 1870, Rev. Stat. 1977, to enforce the rights of citizens to vote, etc., and the act of April 20, 1871, to enforce the provisions of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, see The United States v. Crosby, 1 Hughes, 448; Enforcement Act, 2 Hughes, 518.
The circuit court has power to grant injunctions to stay proceedings and actions in the courts, in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and of the civil rights bill. .
The Slaughter House Case, 1 Woods, 21. But see Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall., 36, where may be found elaborate opinions of a divided court, and an exposition of the meaning of these constitutional and legislative provisions.
Suits on account of injuries by conspirators.--Seventeenth. Of all suits authorized by law to be brought by any person 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, Title, “ Civil Rights.”
20 April, 1871, c. 22, s. 2, v. 16, p. 13. 1 Mar., 1875, c. 114, 8.3, v. 18, p. 336.
Suits against persons having knowledge of conspiracy.-Eighteenth. Of all suits authorized by law to be brought against any person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs mentioned in section nineteen hundred and eighty, are abont to be done, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the same, neglects or refuses so to do, to recover damages for any such wrongful act. (See 2 1981.)
20 April, 1871, c. 22, s. 6, v. 17, p. 15. 20 Feb., 1875, c. 95, s. 4, v. 18, p. 333.
Suits against officers and owners of vessels.-Nineteenth. Of all suits and proceedings arising under section fiftythree hundred and forty-four, Title “CRIMES,” for the punishment of officers and owners of vessels, through whose negligence or misconduct the life of any person is destroyed.
28 Feb., 1871, c. 100, s. 57, v. 16, p. 456.
Crimes and offenses.--Twentieth. Exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States, except where it is or may be otherwise provided by law, and concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts of crimes and offenses cognizable therein.
[And shall have concorrent jurisdiction with the district courts and with the courts of the several States, in actions on bonds of deputy collectors of internal revenues.]
24 Sept., 1788, c. 20, s. 11, v. 1, p. 78. 19 Feb., 1875, c. 90, s. 7, v. 18, p. 331; s. 12, ch. 125, Mar. 1, 1879, p. 329.
No common law jurisdiction. The federal courts have no jurisdiction in criminal cases, except such as is conferred upon them by the constitution and acts of congress, and they can try no offenses except such as are prohibited in some form by said constitution and laws. United States v. Barney, 5 Blatch., 294. (1866.)
The circuit court for the eastern district of New York had jurisdiction under the act of March 3, 1825, of an indictment for an assault with intent to kill, committed in the navy-yard at Brooklyn in that State. United States v. Donlan, Ia., 284.
The act of 1790, providing for the punishment of certain offenses against the United States, did not confer on the courts of the United States jurisdiction in case of murder committed in waters of a State where the tide ebbs and flows. United States v. Bevans, 3 Wh., 336.
Act of 1789, prospective.—The judiciary act of 1789, which gave the circuit courts concurrent jurisdiction of all crimes and misdemeanors cognizable in the district courts, is held to be prospective, and to embrace all offenses the jurisdiction of which is vested in the district courts by subse
quent statutes, and that said circuits had jurisdiction of the offense of selling ardent spirits to an Indian, under the act of February 12, 1862, although by the former act the jurisdiction was vested only in the district courts. United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall., 407.
Act of March 3, 1825, construed.-Where a person was indicted for feloniously stealing a quantity of merchandise belonging to a ship, she being in distress and cast away on a shoal of the sea on the coast of the State of New York, the indictment being founded upon the ninth section of the act entitled “An act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes, approved March 3, 1825," and upon the trial it was admitted that the goods were taken above high water mark, upon the beach, in the county of Queens, in the State of New York, and one question was whether the circuit court of the southern district for New York, had jurisdiction of the case; it was held not to be a case of admiralty jurisdiction; that the act of congress, under which the indictment was had, was authorized by the provision of the constitution giving congress power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States," and that the circuit court had jurisdiction. United States v. Coombs, 12 Pet., 73.
The exportation of goods to a foreign country, contrary to the act of March 9, 1809, Ch. 27, 81, is a misdemeanor, of which the circuit court has original jurisdiction. United States v. John Mann, 1 Gall., 4; United States v. John Tyler, 7 Cr., 285.
Indictments under $ 5520 of the revision.—The jurisdiction of the United States circuit courts, in case of an indictment under section 5520, of the Rev. Stat., for a conspiracy to prevent by force, etc., a citizen lawfully authorized to vote, from giving his support and advocacy in a legal manner in favor of the election of a lawfully qualified person as a member of Congress, is not ousted by the fact that the indictment charges that in carrying out their designs the conspirators were guilty of a crime of which the State courts had exclusive jurisdiction, even though such crime was of a higher grade than the conspiracy charged. United States v Goldman, 3 Woods., C. C., 187.
SEC. 630. In bankruptcy. The circuit courts shall have jurisdiction in matters in bankruptcy, to be exercised within the limits and in the manner provided by law.
2 Mar., 1867, c. 176, ss. 2, 8, v. 14, pp. 518, 520; 22 June, 1874, c. 401, 8. 2, v. 18, p. 195.
Bankrupt act repealed June 7, 1878—took effect September 1, 1878, except as to matters pending in court. Acts 45 Cong., Stat. at Large 19.
Appellate jurisdiction-Jurisdiction on petition of appeals. - The circuit court had jurisdiction under the first clause of the second section of the bankrupt act, on a petition of appeal," by an opposing creditor, as it was regarded as a petition for a review. The bankrupt law gave
the circuit courts a general superintendence and jurisdiction on all questions arising under the act. And on affirmance by the circuit court, of the decree of discharge by the district court no appeal lies to the Supreme Court. Coit v. Robinson, 19 Wall., 274; Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Id., 80; Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Id., 258; Hall v. Allen, 12 Id., 452; Smith v. Mason, 14 Id., 430; Mead v. Thompson, 15 Id., 635; Marshall v. Knox, 16 Id., 555.
A proceeding under the bankrupt law by an assignee, in the district court, by a petition in form, in which the assignee sets out that several parties claim liens against the bankrupt's estate, the validity of which he denies, and in which he prays that said parties may be made parties, and required to answer, etc., and to set forth their claims, etc., and state the particular facts upon which their respective claims are based, etc., in which proceeding the parties asserting the liens answer, and the assignee replies in form, is a case in equity within the eighth section of the bankrupt act, which gives the right to an appeal to the circuit court in all cases in equity, and is not a case under the second section of the act, which provides for the general superintendence and jurisdiction of that court where no other provision is otherwise made. And if such a case is taken unto the circuit court, under said section, it has no jurisdiction of the case, and no appeal lies to the Supreme Court. Stickney v. Wilt, 23 Wall., 150.
And where an assignee in bankruptcy, assisted by a creditor, has twice contested before the district court or its referee the claim of a person who has been allowed to prove his claim, and it has been twice decided, after the production of all the evidence that could be produced in reference to it, thit it was a valid one, no bill lies in the circuit court against either the assignee or person who has been allowed to prove his claim, to have the order allowing it reversed, either under the general provisions of the bankrupt act, or under the second section of it. Bank v. Cooper, 20 Wall., 171. As to jurisdiction, see, also, Payson v. Dietz, 2 Dill., C.C., 504; Backman v. Packard, 2 Saw., 264; Flanders v. Libby, 6 Biss., 16; In re Milton, 6 Id., 30.
SEC. 631. Appeals in admiralty causes.-From all final decrees of a district court in causes of equity or of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, except prize causes, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of fifty dollars, exclusive of costs, an appeal shall be allowed to the circuit court next to be held in such district, and such circuit court is required to receive, hear, and determine such appeal.
24 Sept., 1789, c. 20, s. 21, v. 1, p. 83; 3 Mar., 1803, c. 40, s. 2, v. 2, p. 244; 30 June, 1864, c. 170, s. 13, v. 13, p. 310; 1 June, 1872, c. 255, s. 2, v. 17, p. 196; 16 Feb., 1875, c. 77, v. 18, p. 315.
Instances where the decree is not final.—Where the decree of the district court is not a final one, in a case of admiralty jurisdiction, the circuit