quired to be held in the division of the district in which such clerk shall not himself reside, the appointment to be subject to judicial approval. (26 U. S. Stats. 68.)

SOUTH CAROLINA. The office of the clerk of said court shall be kept in the cities of Charleston and of Greenville, and the clerk shall reside in one of the said cities and shall have a deputy in the other. (26 U. S. Stats. 71.)

SOUTH DAKOTA.-The clerk of the circuit court shall reside at Sioux Falls, and he may appoint a deputy to reside and have an office at Pierre and Deadwood. (26 U. S. Stats. 15.)

§ 81 (626). Compensation of deputy clerks. The compensations of deputies of clerks of the circuit courts shall be paid by the clerks, respectively, and allowed in the same manner that other expenses of the clerks' offices are paid and allowed. (Rev. Stats. sec. 626.)

§ 82 (627). Commissioners.-Each circuit court may appoint, in different parts of the district for which it is held, so many discreet persons as it may deem necessary, who shall be called "commissioners of the circuit courts," and shall exercise the powers which are or may be expressly conferred by law upon commissioners of circuit courts. (Rev. Stats. sec. 627; see secs. 2025, 2026.)

A commissioner is in no sense a magistrate inferior to the court. The court cannot issue a certiorari to review proceedings before him. (Ex parte Van Orden, 3 Blatchf. 166.) Although a court of record can act only through

its orders made of record, yet when it is by law authorized to appoint an agent, it is not necessary that all the acts of the agent should appear of record. (Bullitt County v. Washer, 130 U. S. 142.) As to the powers of court commissioners under the provisions of chap. 7 of the title Crimes, see United States v. Jones, 134 U. S. 483; see Rev. Stats. secs. 1982-1985.

§ 83 (628). Marshals not to be commissioners. No marshal, or deputy marshal, of any of the courts of the United States shall hold or exercise the duties of commissioner of any of the said courts. (Rev. Stats. sec. 628.

FED. PROC.-22.

CHAPTER VII.

CIRCUIT COURTS-JURISDICTION.

§ 84. Jurisdiction, original and concurrent.

Citizens claiming lands under different State grants-Foreign citizens, etc.

§ 85.

§ 93.

Jurisdiction of cases transferred from district courts on account of disability, etc.

§ 94. Courts always open for certain purposes,

§ 95. In bankruptcy.

$ 84.

Circuit

court

Jurisdiction,

original and concurrent.-The circuit courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different States, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid. (Act of March, 1875, Rev. Stats. sec. 629; clause 1, as amended March 3, 1887, and corrected August 13, 1888, 25 U. S. Stats. 433.)

Power of the judiciary.-Judicial power means the power wit which courts are clothed, the power to render a judgmen; or decree. (U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Peters, 691; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Peters, 657) The judicial power is unavoidably, in some cases, exclusive of all State authority, and in others may be made so by legislation. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; The Moses. Taylor, 4 Wall. 411. The jurisdiction of the Federal courts depends exclusively on the Constitution and statutes passed in pursuance thereof. (Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch, 303; Bank v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61; Amer. Ins. Co. v. Carter, 1 Peters, 511; Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock. 203; U. S. v. Drenhen, Hemp. 320; U. S. v. Alberty, Hemp. 444.) The Constitution defines the limits, and Congress prescribes how much of it is to be exercised. (Turner v. Bank, 4 Dall. 20; McIntyre v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504; Kendall v. U. S., 12 Peters, 616; Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 245; Clarke v. Jonesville, 4 Am. Law Reg. 593.) In the first three classes of cases named in this section-first, cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or treaties made under its authority; second, all cases affecting ambassadors, foreign ministers, and consuls; and third, all cases of admiralty and marine jurisdiction;-the jurisdiction is exclusive (State v. McBride, Rice, 400); and in the latter class as to controversies, Congress may qualify the jurisdiction as either original or appellate. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411.) The Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, but inferior in the sense of the Constitution only in that judgments may be reviewed on appeal. (Turner v. Bank, 4 Dail. 9; U. S. v. Ta-wan-ga-ca, Hemp. 304; U. S. v. Hudson, 7 Cranch, 32; Matt. of Meador, 1 Abb. U. S. 321; Griswold v. Sedgwick, 1 Wend. 126; Byero v. Fowler, 12 Ark. 218; Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172; Nugent v. State, 18 A a. 52. They can exercise only the jurisdiction conferred on them by Congress (Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. C. C. 235; Magill v. Parsons, 4 Bonn. 317), or by treaty. (The British Prisoner, 1 Wood. & M. 66; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Wood. & M. 437; Smith v. Jackson, 1 Paine, 453.)

Circuit court. The jurisdiction of the circuit court depends exclusively on the Constitution and laws of the United States (Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236; Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 44; Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393; Hubbard v. Northern R. R. Co., 3 Blatchf. 84; Bennett v. Bennett, Deady, 300; Karahow v. Adams, 1 Dill. 344; Wisconsin v. Duluth, 2 Dill. 406; Harrison v. Hadley, 2 Dill. 223; Smith v. Allyn, 1 Paine, 486; Livingston v. Van Ingen, 1 l'aine, 45; U. S. v. Terrel, Hemp. 411; U. S. v. Alberty, Hemp. 444; White v. Fenner, 1 Mason, 520; Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. C. C. 232; Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock. 203); and it cannot be affected by State legislation. (Persons v. Lyman, 5 Blatchf. 170; Livingston v. Jefferson, i Brock. 203.) The jurisdiction of the circuit court is limited, and where it does not obtain, it is an inflexible rule that it cannot be exercised, even if both parties desire to have it exerted. (Railroad Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379; Vannerson v. Leverett, Cir. Ct. Ga., 31 Fed. Rep. 376.) The presumption is that a cause is without its jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. (Grace v. Am. Cent. Ius. Co., 109 U. S. 278; Peper v. Fordyce, 119 U. S. 469; Turner v. Bank, 4 Dall. 8; Livingston v. Van Ingen, 1 Paine, 45.) It is not irrespective of citizenship unless the subject-matter arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. (Dowell v. Griswold, 5 Sawy. 39.) A proceeding by way of attachment to enforce a judgment is a suit, and jurisdiction attaches if the creditor and garnishee are not citizens of the same State (Tunstall v. Worthington, Hemp. 662); but attachment cannot be sued out in an action where court has not jurisdiction of persons. (Exp. Ry. Co., 103 U. S. 795.) The circuit court may by habeas corpus bring up the body of a person imprisoned by a judgment of a courtmartial. (Barrett v. Hopkins, 2 McCrary, 129.) An application for mandamus cannot he made to the circuit court as an exercise of original jurisdiction, although the parties are citizens of different States. (McIntyre v. Woods, 7 Cranch, 504; McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 593; Bath Co. v. Amy, 13 Wall. 244; Graham v. Norton, 15 Wall. 427; Wheeling v. Mayor, 1 Hughes, 90; U. S. v. Smallwood, 1 Chic. L. N. 321.) In a suit to cancel a purely personal contract (not lien), circuit cou. t cannot ac