« AnteriorContinuar »
State statutes. Equity jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is subject to neither limitation nor restraint by State legislation, and is uniform throughout the States of the Union. The United States courts arc bound to administer equitable remedies in cases to which they are applicable and which are not adapted to a commonlaw action. Bills quia timet belong to the ancient jurisdiction in equity; and the jurisdiction of Federal courts in such cases cannot be curtailed by Stato legislation giving a remedy at law.? 1 Union Trust Co. v. Rochester & P. R. Co., 29 Fed. Rep. C09; Kirby
Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 120 U, S. 130; Barron v. Burnside, 121.U. S. 186; McConihay v. Wright, Id. 201; Borer v. Chapman, 119 U. S. 587; May v. Saginaw Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 620; Hoover v. Crawford Co., 3) Icd. Rep. 712.
2 Beckman v. Hudson Riv. etc. Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 9.
4 Clark v. Bever, 139 U.S. 96; Payne v. Hook, 74 U. S. 425; Mississippi Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. $.
485; Dela ware Co. Comrs. v. Diebold etc. Co., 133 U. S. 473; Upsher Co. v. Rich, 135 U. S. 467; Borer v. Chapman, 119 U. S. 587.
5 Kirby v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 120 U. S. 130.
Jurisdiction generally.—Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the subject-matte- ir controversy between parties to a suit. A sentence of a court, pronounced against a party without hearing hira or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal, as jurisdiction can never depend on the decision, but upon the merits of a case; upon the right to hear and determine at all.3 In a court of general jurisdiction, the presumption is in favor of its authority to act in a given case when nothing appears to the contrary; * and when jurisdiction of the subject-matter appears, jurisdiction of the persons within its territorial limits will be presumed.5
1 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Peters, 657; United States v. Arredondo, 6 Peters, 691.
2 Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274.
§ 3 e. Limitation of jurisdiction.--Courts created by statute can have no jurisdiction but such as the statute confers.' In such case the requirements of the statute must be strictly complied with, or the jurisdiction does not vest.? A court is limited in its powers by the statute, under which alone it can act.3 Where the jurisdiction of a court has been enlarged, judgments or decrees founded upon the new jurisdiction are liable to the general provisions in respect to writs of error and appeals. * After the repeal of an act conferring jurisdiction, the appellate court has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal.5 Where a jurisdiction conferred by statute is prohibited by a subsequent statute, the prohibition is so far a repeal of the statute conferring the jurisdiction. But the act of Congress repealing the exclusion of State courts as to actions against consuls does not lessen the jurisdiction of Federal courts over such actions.7
1 Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441.
5. Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506; Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 541.
6 Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 541. 7 Froment v. Duclos, 30 Fed. Rep. 385.
§ 3 f. Territorial limit of jurisdiction.--A court created within and for a particular territory is bounded in the exercise of its power by the limits of such territory. Whatever may be the extent of the jurisdiction over the subject matter in a suit, in respect to jurisdiction over persons and property, it can only be exercised within the Îimits of the judicial district. The circuit court has jurisdiction only over the inhabitants of the district, or persons found therein, and served with process. So, where a citizen of New Hampshire and a citizen of Georgia sued a citizen of Massachusetts in New York, where he was arrested, the court had no jurisdiction; 4 but where there are two districts in a State, a citizen of such State is liable to suit in either district, if served with process.“
1 Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35; Ex parte Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. 456. 2 Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35.
3 Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 424; Anderson v. Shaffer, 10 Fed. Rep. 266.
4 Moffat v. Soley, 2 Paine, 103.
5 McMicken v. Webb, 11 Peters, 25; Vore v. Fowler, 2 Bond, 294; Locomotive Co. v. Erie Ry Co., 10 Blatchf. 292.
§ 4. Exclusive jurisdiction of courts of United States.—The jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States, in the cases and proceedings hereinafter mentioned, shall be exclusive of the courts of the several States.
First. Of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States.
Second. Of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the United States.
Third. Of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it.
Fourth. Of all seizures under the laws of the United States, on land or on waters not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.
Fifth. Of all cases arising under the patent-right or copyright laws of the United States.
Sixth. Of all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy.
Seventh. 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. (U. S. Rev. Stats. sec. 711.) & 4 a.
Criminal jurisdiction. The courts of the United States have no common-law jurisdiction in criminal cases.
1 United States v. Lewis (Or.), 36 Fed. Rep. 449; In re Barry, 42 Fed. Rep. 113.
§ 4 b. Extent of criminal jurisdiction.— The criminal jurisdiction of United States courts now extends
over the great lakes and their connecting waters. (26 U. S. Stats. 424.)
§ 4 c. Admiralty jurisdiction. - Congress may pass all laws which are necessary for giving the most complete effect to the exercise of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction granted to the government of the Union. But the general jurisdiction over the places subject to this grant of admiralty jurisdiction adheres to the territory as a portion of sovereignty not yet given away, and the residuary powers of legislation still remain in the State. The jurisdiction of a State is coextensive with its territory."
1 United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336.
§ 5. Suits for punishment of officers and owners of vessels for negligence.Of all suits and proceedings arising under section fifty-three 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. (Rev. Stats. sec. 629, cl. 19.)
§ 6. For condemnation of prize.—Of all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as a prize, in pursuance of section fifty-three hundred and eight, title “Insurrection.” (See secs. 5308, 5309, Rev. Stats. sec. 629 ch. 6; Union Ins. Co. v. U. S. 6 Wall. 759.)
$7. For suppression of slave trade.Of all suits arising under any law relating to the slave trade. (Rev. Stats. sec. 629, ch. 7; U. Š. v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; U. S. v. The Sally, 2 Cranch, 406; U. S. v. The Betsy and Charlotte, 4 Cranch. 443, The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391.)
$ 8. Suits under the patent or copyright laws.—Of all suits at law or in equity arising under the patent or copyright laws of the United States. (Rev. Stats. sec. 629, cl. 9.)
NOTE.--Of qui tam actions for penalties imposed by Revised Statutes, section 4963, under the copyrightact, though by section 563 the district courts have jurisdiction of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the United States. (Rev. Stats., sec. 4963; Taft v. Stevens L. & E. Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 729; see Allen v. Blunt, 1 Blatchf. 480; Goodyear v. Day, 1 Blatchf. 565; Goodyear v. India Rub. Co., 4 Blatchf. 63; Burr v. Gregory, 2 Paine, 426; Brooks v. Stolly, 3 McLean, 523; Pulte v. Derby, 5 McLean, 328; Black v. Allen, 9 L. R. A. 433.)
§ 8 a. Suits under copyright and trade-mark laws.-A court of equity has jurisdiction over a suit for an infringement of a copyright, - and of an action for the infringement of a trade-mark, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties.3 Both the title and the infringement may be adjudicated without having been first determined by law;3 but it has no jurisdiction in equity to protect the rights of an author at common law, where the parties are citizens of the same State;t nor if the controversy arises out of a con. tract, and not under the statute; nor to enforce penalties and forfeitures incurred under the statute. 6° So a State court has jurisdiction of an action to determine the rights of the respective parties under an agreement by defendant with plaintiff, for the exclusive right to have and perform a certain play." The circuit court of the United States has jurisdiction of a qui tam action for penalties imposed by the Revised Statutes, section 4963; though by section 563 the district courts have jurisdiction of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the United States. 8
1 Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 Wood. & M. 23. 2 Duwell v. Bohmer, 10 Ch. L. N. 356. 3 Farmer v. Calvert Pub. Co., 5 Ch. L. N. 1. 4 Boucicault v. Hart, 13 Blatchf. 47. 5 Little v. Hall, 18 How. 165; Polte v. Derby, 5 McLean, 328.