Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Co., 9 Blatchf. 467); nor is a neglect till a full term has passed a waiver of the right to do so. (Young v. Andes Ins. Co., 1 Flippin, 599.) If the removal is not applied for in time, the cause will be remanded. But the objection must be seasonably made, or it will be deemed waived. (French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 244.) And it may be conclusively waived by submitting to the jurisdiction of the circuit court, by taking testimony, and by delay for an unreasonable time to object. (French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 244; Ames v. Colorado Cent. R. Co. 9 Chic. L. N. 132; Young v. Andes Ins. Co., 3 Cent. L. J. 12; Carring ton v. Florida R. Co., 9 Blatchf. 467.) Where the application is made too late the case will not be remanded. (Kerting v. Amer. Oleograph Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 17; 11 Biss. 81; Pratt v. Albright, 9 Fed. Rep. 634; 10 Biss. 511.)

§ 114. Remanding order not appealable. Whenever any cause shall be removed from any State court into any circuit court of the United States, and the circuit court shall decide that the cause was improperly removed, and order the same to be remanded to the State court from whence it came, such remand shall be immediately carried into execution, and no appeal or writ of error from the decision of the circuit court so remanding such cause shall be allowed. (25 U. S. Stats. 433.)

See DESTY'S REMOVAL, Sec. 111.

Effect of remand.-On the order of the circuit court remanding a cause, the jurisdiction of the State court. ipso facto, reattaches (Thatcher v. McWilliams, 47 Ga. 306; 50 Ala. 464; Germania F. Ins. Co. v. Francis, 52 Miss. 457), and if no steps are taken to reverse the judg ment of the circuit court, the State court may proceed with the cause (Thompson v. Kendricks, 5 Hayw. 115, and the State appellate tribunal cannot interfere by certiorari to oust the jurisdiction. (Jenkins v. Switzer, 33 Leg. Int. 282.) Where the Federal court declines to take jurisdiction and remand the cause, it does not oper

ate as a discontinuance, but is deemed to have been pending in the State court. (Germania F. Ins. Co. v. Francis, 52 Miss. 457.) If the circuit court does not obtain jurisdiction it cannot, on remanding the cause, give a judgment for costs, and order execution thereon. (Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247.)

$115.

Issues of fact, when to be tried by jury. The trial of issues of fact in the circuit courts shall be by jury, except in cases of equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and except as otherwise provided in proceedings in bankruptcy, and by the next section. (Rev. Stats. sec. 648.)

Trial by jury.-The trial of issues of fact shall be by jury, except in cases of equity or admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. (Town of Lyons v. Lyons Nat. Bank, 8 Fed. Rep. 371; 19 Blatchf. 279. See Howe S. M. Co. v. Edwards, 15 Blatchf. 405.) A circuit court cannot order a peremptory nonsuit against the will of the plaintiff. (Castle v. Bullard, 23 How. 172; Elmore v. Grymes, 1 Peters, 469; D'Wolf v. Braband, 1 Peters, 476; Crane v. Morris, 6 Peters, 598; Silsby v. Foote, 1 Blatchf. 445.) Nor can it refer the case to a referee without consent of both parties. (Howe S. M. Co. v. Edwards, 15 Blatchf. 405; United States v. Rathbone, 2 Paine, 578.)

§ 116. Issues of fact tried by the court. Issues of fact in civil cases in any circuit court nay be tried and determined by the court, without he intervention of a jury, whenever the parties, ▪r their attorneys of record, file with the clerk a tipulation in writing waiving a jury. The finding of he court upon the facts, which may be either genral or special, shall have the same effect as the verict of a jury. (Rev. Stats. sec. 649.) [See sec. 700.] Note. This section is not repealed by the act of March 1875, section three. (Phillips v. Moore, 100 U. S. 208.)

Question was discussed in Town of Lyons v. Lyons Nat. Bank, 8 Fed. Rep. 371; 19 Blatchf. 279; and section seven hundred of the Revised Statutes was enacted to carry out its provisions. (Town of Lyons v. Lyons Nat. Bank, 8 Fed. Rep. 371; 19 Blatchf. 279.) This section does not conflict with section nine hundred and fourteen, Revised Statutes, but leaves it in full force. (Wear v. Mayer, 6 Fed. Rep. 660; 2 McCrary, 172.) This section and section seven hundred, Revised Statutes, relate only to the circuit court. (Howard v. Crompton, 14 Blatch. 333.)

Waiver of jury trial.-There must be an agreement to waive a jury trial to enable the court to try an issue of fact (Morgan v. Gay, 19 Wall. 81; see Robinson v. Mut. Ben. L. Ins. Co., 16 Blatchf. 201); but parties may waive without a written stipulation, yet they must file their stipulation if they desire to secure the right of a review in the Su preme Court on any question of law arising in the trial. (Kearney's Case, 12 Wall. 275; see Town of Lyons v. Lyons Nat. Bank, 8 Fed. Rep. 371; 19 Blatchf. 279.) Then the stipulation must be in writing, and be filed with the clerk. (Kearny's Case, 12 Wall. 275.) The court has no power to order a reference and deprive defendant of his right. (Howe S. M. Co. v. Edwards, 15 Blatchf. 405.)

Findings by the court.-The findings may be general or special (Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125; Marye v. Strouse, 5 Fed. Rep. 497; 6 Sawy. 204; see Insurance Asso. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 117); and whether general or special, they have the same effect as the verdict of a jury (U. S. v. Dawson, 101 U. S. 569; Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125); and there must be a finding, either general or special, to authorize a judgment (Insurance Asso. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 117); but if the court omits to file a finding it may do so at a subsequent term. (Insurance Asso. v. Boon, 95 V. S. 117.) If a general finding includes mixed questions of law and fact, it concludes both, except so far as they may be saved by exceptions. (Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall, 125.) All that is essential in a special finding is that it shall find the ultimate facts. (Mining Co. v. Taylor, 100 U. S. 37.) It is not a mere report of the evidence, but a statement of the ultimate facts on which the rights of the parties must be determined. (Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125)

civil

§ 117. Division of opinion in causes - Decision by presiding judge.— Whenever, in any civil suit or proceeding in a circuit court held by a circuit justice and a circuit judge or a district judge, or by a circuit judge and a district judge, there occurs any difference of opinion between the judges as to any matter or thing to be decided, ruled or ordered by the court, the opinion of the presiding justice or judge shall prevail, and be considered the opinion of the court for the time being. (Rev. Stats. sec. 650.)

Note. No civil suit can be taken to the Supreme Court except upon final judgment and on appeal or writ of error. (Robbins v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 16 Blatchf. 232. The district judge cannot sit in the circuit court in case brought there by writ of error from the district ourt, and such cause cannot be brought to the Supreme curt on certificate of division. (U. S. v. Lancaster, 5 Vheat. 434.) Upon the hearing in the circuit court of n appeal from a judgment of the district court, the disict judge who rendered the decision appealed from, though he may, for the information of the court, assign s reasons for that decision, is prohibited from voting or king part in the judgment of the circuit court. (United cates v. Emholt, 11 Fed. Rep. 190, note.) On appeal to is court, if it finds that the judgment as rendered is rrect, it may simply affirm it; but if it is reversed, all estions certified which are considered in the final deternation of the case should be answered. (United States Reese, 92 U. S. 214.)

118.

use

Division of opinion in criminal Certificate.-Whenever any question urs on the trial or hearing of any criminal proding before a circuit court upon which the ges are divided in opinion, the point upon which

they disagree shall, during the same term, upon the request of either party, or of their counsel, be stated under the direction of the judges, and certified, under the seal of the court, to the Supreme Court at their next session; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the cause from proceeding, if, in the opinion of the court, further proceedings can be had without prejudice to the merits. Imprisonment shall not be allowed nor punishment inflicted in any case where the judges of such court are divided in opinion upon the question touching the said imprisonment or punishment. (Rev. Stats. sec. 651. See sec. 697.)

Criminal causes.-A certificate that the judges differ in opinion is not sufficient unless it states the points on which they differ. (United States v. Bailey, 9 Peters, 267; United States v. Briggs, 5 How. 208; United States v. Ross, 3 Wheat. 600.) The Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of a division of opinion on a motion to quash an indictment (United States v. Rosenburgh, 7 Wall. 580): nor determine on a certificate of division whether or not a new trial should be granted. (United States v. Daniel, 6 Wheat. 542.) So where the jury found the value of the property, and the judges, being opposed in opinion, certified the case, the law creates the offense and defines the punishment, and no value need he found by the jury. (United States v. Tyler, 7 Cranch, 285.) The omission from the certificate of the words "upon the request of either party or their counsel" is not a fatal omission. (United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629.)

§ 119. Division of opinion in civil causes-Certificate.-When a final judgment or decree is entered in any civil suit or proceeding before any circuit court held by a circuit justice and a circuit judge or a district judge, or by a circuit judge and a district judge, in the trial or hear

« AnteriorContinuar »