1010. Damages and costs on affirm- 1026. Judgment on demurrer to an ance in error. 1011. Reversal on error limited. 1013. Where both parties appeal to CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1014. Offenders against the United indictment. 1027. When several indictments against the same person, one writ sufficient. 1028. Copy of writ to be jailer's authority; original returned. 1029. Writ for removal of a prisoner from one district to another. 1030. No writ necessary to bring into court a person in custody. 1031. When peremptory challenges exceed the number allowed by law. Prisoner standing mute, etc. Persons indicted for capital 1032. 1033. 1034. 1035. 1019. New bail to be given in certain 1036. cases. Verdict against part of several joint defendants. Indictments remitted by circuit and district courts to each other. 1038. 1022. Offenses against the elective franchise, how prosecuted. 1023. Matters set forth in prosecutions for perjury before a naval court-martial. 1039. 1040. Remission from district to circuit court of difficult cases. All capital cases remitted from district to circuit courts. When a capital case is carried to the Supreme Court, execution postponed. Judgments for fines, how collected. 1042. Poor convicts sentenced and imprisoned for fines. SEC. 911. Sealing and testing of writs.-All writs and processes issuing from the courts of the United States shall be under the seal of the court from which they issue, and shall be signed by the clerk thereof. Those issuing from the Supreme Court or a circuit court shall bear teste of the chief justice of the United States, or, when that office is vacant, of the associate justice next in precedence, and those issuing from a district court shall bear teste of the judge, or, when that office is vacant, of the clerk thereof. The seals of said courts shall be provided at the expense of the United States. 4 SEC. 912. Teste of process-day of.-All process issued from the courts of the United States shall bear teste from the day of such issue. 1 June, 1872, c. 255, s. 4, v. 17, p. 197. SEC. 913. Mense process and proceedings in equity and admiralty.-The forms of mesne process and the forms. and modes of proceeding in suits of equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in the circuit and district courts shall be according to the principles, rules, and usages which belong to courts of equity and of admiralty, respectively, except when it is otherwise provided by statute or by rules of court made in pursuance thereof; but the same shall be subject to alteration and addition by the said courts, respectively, and to regulation by the Supreme Court, by rules prescribed, from time to time, to any circuit or district court, not inconsistent with the laws of the United States. 29 Sept., 1789, c. 21, s. 2, v. 1, p. 93; 8 May, 1792, c. 36, s. 2, v. 1, p. 276; 19 May, 1828, c. 68, s. 1, v. 4, p. 278; 1 Aug., 1842, c. 109, v. 5, p. 499. Rule 90 (see post) of equity rules provides that the practice in the circuit court shall be regulated in equity cases by the present practice of the High Court of Chancery in England, so far as it can be consistently, and where the rules prescribed by the Supreme or circuit court do not apply. See rule 90 in equity, and notes. State of Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., 13 How., 563; Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wh., 212. Where there are no equity State courts.-There being no equity State courts or laws regulating the practice in equity cases does not prevent the equity jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and the federal courts in the States are bound to proceed in equity cases according to the principles, rules and usages of courts of equity, as contradistinguished from courts of law. Gaines v. Relf, 15 Pet., 9; Livingstone v. Story, 9 Id., 655; Poultnery v. City of La Fayette, 12 Id., 474; Ex parte Whitney, 13 Id., 404. Pleadings in admiralty.-The rules of pleadings in admiralty in the federal courts must be strictly complied with, and the evidence and arguments confined to the points put in issue by the allegations of the libel and the denial of the answer. A consignee may sue either in his own name, as agent, or in the name of his principal. McKinlay v. Morrish, 21 How., 343; Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 Id., 100. In admiralty attachment gives jurisdiction in personam.—A district court of the United States, when acting as a court of admiralty, can obtain jurisdiction to proceed in personam against an inhabitant of the United States not residing within the district by attachment of the goods or property of such inhabitant found within the district. And this embraces a corporation incorporated by a State not within the district as well as a natural person. Atkins v. The Disintegrating Company, 18 Wall., 272, where the court further held that the provision [now embraced in the first section of the act of 1875, see ante, ch. vII] "And no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts [circuit or district] against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving such process, or commencing such proceedings" does not embrace cases in admiralty; that an admiralty case, in the sense there used, is not a "civil suit." The use of attachments in civil causes of maritime jurisdiction by courts of admiralty has prevailed during a period as far back as the authentic history of those tribunals can be traced. Manro v. Almeida, 10 Wh., 473; Waring v. Clark, 5 How., 455; The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 527; The Genesee Chief, 12 How., 444; Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall., 24; The Invincible, 2 Gallis, 41; New Jersey, etc., Co. v. Merchant's Bank, 6 How., 344. Rules of proceeding in admiralty.-The proceedings in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in the courts of the United States are to be according to the modified admiralty of our own country engrafted upon British practice, and it is not sufficient reason for rejecting a particular process which has been in constant use in the admiralty courts of this country, that it has fallen into disuse in England. The remedy by attachment in admiralty in marine cases applies even where the same goods are liable to the process of foreign attachment issuing from the courts of common law. But an attachment cannot issue without the express order of the judge. Manro v. Almeida, 10 Wh., 473. Rules of pleading in admiralty must be strictly complied with. McKinlay v. Morrish, 21 How., 343. Equitable proceedings.-The district court cannot abolish chancery practice in that court, as it would be a violation of the rules which the Supreme Court of the United States has passed to regulate the courts of equity of the United States. The only modifications or additions which the circuit and district courts can make are such as shall be consistent with the rules prescribed. Story v. Livingston, 13 Pet., 359. The acts of a State regulating the proceedings on injunctions and other chancery proceedings, and giving certain effects to them in courts of law, are of no force in relation to the courts of the United States. Modes of proceeding in equity suits in the federal courts must be according to the principles, rules and usages of courts of equity in the parent country. Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet., 648. Rules subject to alteration or addition.-The delegation of power by congress to the courts of the United States to make and alter rules of practice is constitutional, and is not limited to merely formal, in contradistinction to substantial, alterations. Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wh., 1; Ful |