Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

proceeded against by indictment or otherwise within the division of said district where the alleged offense or offenses shall be committed, and shall have his or her trial at a term of the said court held in said division, unless for cause shown the judge shall otherwise direct; and one grand and one petit jury only shall be summoned and serve in both said courts at each term thereof; and jurors shall be selected and drawn from the division of the said district in which they reside, and in which the terms of the said circuit and district courts to which they are summoned are held. (20 U. S. Stats. 175; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 375.)

MISSISSIPPI. - That all crimes and offenses heretofore committed within the counties of Bolivar and Sunflower shall be prosecuted, tried, and determined in the same manner and with the same effect as if this act had not been passed. (Approved April 11, 1888; 25 U. S. Stats. 84.)

MISSOURI.-All offenses hereafter committed in either of said divisions shall be cognizable and indictable within the division where submitted; and all grand and petit jurors summoned for service in each division shall be inhabitants thereof. And all offenses heretofore committed within said district shall be prosecuted and tried as if this act had not passed. (20 U. S. Stats. 263; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 393.)

OHIO, NORTHERN DISTRICT. All offenses committed in either of the subdivisions shall be cognizable and indictable within said division. (20 U. S. Stats. 101; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 338.)

OH10~All prosecutions for crimes or offenses hereafter committed in either of the subdivisions

shall be cognizable within such division; and all prosecutions for crimes or offenses heretofore committed within either of said counties taken as aforesaid from the northern district, or committed in the southern district as heretofore constituted, shall be commenced and proceeded with as if this act had not been passed. (21 U. S. Stats. 63; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 508.)

TENNESSEE.—All prosecutions for crimes or offenses hereafter committed in either of the subdivisions shall be cognizable within such division; and all prosecutions for crimes or offenses heretofore committed within said county taken as aforesaid from the middle district, or committed in the eastern district as hitherto constituted, shall be commenced and proceeded with as if this act had not been passed. (21 U. S. Stats. 175; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 347.)

TEXAS.--And all prosecutions in either of said districts for offenses against the laws of the United States shall be tried in that division of the district to which process for the county in which said offenses are committed is by said section required to be returned. And all writs and recognizances in said prosecutions shall be returned to that division in which said prosecutions by this act are to be tried. (21 U. S. Stats. 198; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 551.)

Note.-The circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Texas had jurisdiction to try defendant for the offense of murder committed prior to the passage of the Act of 1889, in the Public Land Strip, no prosecution for the offense having been commenced before the act was passed. (Cook v. United States, 138 U. S. 157.)

§ 83. Civil actions and suits to be brought only in district where defendant is inhabitant.—And no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different States, suits shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant. (Cl. 4, Act of March 3, 1875, as amended by Act of March 3, 1887; Aug. 13, 1888; 25 U. S. Stats. 433. See Rev. Stats. sec. 739.)

[ocr errors]

§ 83 a. Civil actions and suits, where brought. - When the jurisdiction depends upon the existence of a Federal question, or upon grounds other than the citizenship of the parties, the defendant must be sued in the district of his domicile; but when the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties, the suit may be brought in the districtin which either the plaintiff or defendant resides. So an alien, an inhabitant of a foreign country temporarily within the jurisdiction of a Federal court, cannot be sued there by citizens of that place, under the Act of 1888.2 A suit cannot be maintained in the district of New Jersey against the commissioner of patents, whose official residence is in the District of Columbia. 3 A circuit court in Missouri has no jurisdiction of an action against a corporation created by the State of Mississippi, and having its principal office there for damages for acts amounting to a violation of the Interstate Commerce Law, though defendant has an office and an agent in Missouri, and plaintiff resides there, and though the petition shows a cause of action at common law.4 A suit to enforce a lien or trust may be brought in the district where the property is situated and where some of the defendants claiming an equitable lien thereon reside, although neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant who owns the property reside in that district. 5 An action by a citizen of Ohio to enforce a claim to property in Vermont, against citizens of that State and of New York and Maine, is properly brought in the United States circuit court for the district of Vermont, under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1887.6 The provisions of the act of Congress prescribing the district in which a suit shall be brought do not apply to cases removed from State courts.?

1 St. Louis, V. & T. H. R. Co. v. Terre Haute & I. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 385; Rawley v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 305.

2 Meyers v. Herrera, 41 Fed. Rep. 65.
3 Illingsworth v. Atha, 42 Fed. Rep. 141.
4 Connor v. Vicksburg & M. R. Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 273.
5 Langdon v. Central R. & Bkg. Co. Ga. 2 L. R. A. 120.
6 Carpenter v. Talbot, 33 Fed. Rep. 537.

7 Crocker Nat. Bank v. Pagenstecher, 44 Fed. Rep. 705; Fales v. Chicago M. & St. P.R. Co., 32 Fed Rep. 673.

§ 83 b. Jurisdiction depending only on adverse citizenship. -Where Federal jurisdiction depends ouly on adverse citizenship of parties, under the act of Cngress of March 3, 1887, the plaintiff may sue defendant, either in the Federal district in which he resides, or in that in which the defendant resides; the act confines him to such districts. Where the defendants are resi. dents of different States, and jurisdiction exists on the ground of citizenship only, the suit may be brought in the district where either of the defendants resides. When jurisdiction is founded on any of the grounds specially mentioned in the act of 1875, as amended, except diverse citizenship, the suit may be brought in the district of defendant's residence; but where founded solely on the ground of adverse citizenship, it shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either party. A citizen of one State can sue in the Federal court in the district of his residence a corporation of another State, where jurisdiction depends only on citizenship.* Where plaintiff is a citizen of Massachusetts, and defendant a corporation created by the law of Rhode Island, as well as by the law of Massachusetts, the suit may be brought in the Federal court for the Rhode Island district. 5 Under the act of 1888, an action by a non-resident against i partnership, whose members are residents of different States and districts, may be brought in the district of the residence of

DESTY REMOVALS.-12.

one of them. 6

Where jurisdiction depends on citizenship, and there are several plaintiffs who are jointly interested, they must all be residents of the district in which suit is brought, if it is not brought in the district of the defendant's residence.7

1 Gavin v. Vance, 33 Fed. Rep. 84; Fales v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 673; Short v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 114; Bank of Winona v. Avery, 34 Fed. Rep. 81.

2 Rawitzer v. Wyatt, 40 Fed. Rep. 609.
3 McCormick v. Walthers, 134 U. S. 41.

4 Bostwick v. American Finance Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 897; Rawley v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 305.

5 Page v. Fall River W. & P. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 257.
6 Rawitzer v. Wyatt, 40 Fed. Rep. 609.
7 Smith v. Lyon, 38 Fed. Rep. 53.

Defendant can be sued only in the district where he is inhabitant.-A Federal circuit court cannot take cognizance of a suit against a party, in a district of which he is not an inhabitant, unless he consents or waives his right to object, except where the jurisdiction of the circuit court founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different States. The fact that a railroad company keeps an office and agent in a Federal judicial district outside of the State which chartered it, and in which are its road and chief office, will not make it an inhabitant of such district. The right of a defendant to object to being sued in a district of which he is not an inhabitant is personal to himself, and he may insist upon or waive that right as he chooses. The privilege accorded to a defendant, to be sued only in the district of which he is an inhabitant, is waived by filing a general appearance and answering to its merits.5 Even if the act confers a privilege merely, it is not waived by a formal appearance entered on the first rule-day, followed on the second rule-day by an assertion of the right to be sued only in the district of his residence.6 Where defendant is not an inhabitant of the district wherein the suit is brought, he may assert his objection to being served out of the district of his residence by demurrer as well as by motion to dismiss. 7

83 c.

1 Yuba County v. Pioneer Gold Mining Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 183. 2 Halstead v. Manning, 34 Fed. Rep. 565.

« AnteriorContinuar »