jurisdiction in those States where no courts of equ exist, but, on the contrary, are bound to administer eq table remedies in cases to which they are applicable, a which are not adapted to a common-law action. 11 Th have jurisdiction to entertain a bill in equity to set asi an assignment on the ground of fraud. 12 They have jur diction to cancel a written contract of marriage on t ground of its forgery. 13

1 New Orleans v. Louisiana Construction Co., 129 U. S. 45; Kend v. Creighton, 53 How. 90; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling etc. Bridge Co.. How. 518.

3 United States v. Wilson, 118 U. S. 86; citing Frazier v. Browni 11 Lea, 253; Thompson v. Railroad Companies, 6 Wall. 134; Basey v. G lagher, 20 Wall. 670.

§ 73 h. Jurisdiction without regard to citizen ship of parties.-Where the controversy is between ci izens of the same State, the bill and the affidavits mus make a Federal question, or the Federal court has no ju risdiction. The jurisdiction cannot be extended to othe questions raised by supplemental bill.2 The circuit cour has jurisdiction of a suit for a perpetual injunction t restrain the enforcement of a judgment in ejectment ren dered in it, without an averment of citizenship of parties. Equitable powers of Federal courts as courts of law t prevent abuse of their process may be invoked by stran gers to the litigation without regard to citizenship. In suit to enjoin the as ignment of a judgment in a Federa court, the court has jurisdiction without regard to the cit izenship of the parties to such suit.5 The Federal court have jurisdiction of suits involving the validity of a tax imposed by a State, alleged to be in violation of the Uni

ted States Constitution, without regard to the citizenship

of the parties thereto."

1 Tanner v. Alliance, 29 Fed. Rep. 196.

2 Omaha Horse R. Co. v. Cable Tramway Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 727.

3 Johnson v. Christian, 125 U. S 642.

4 Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U. S. 131.

5 Thompson v. McReynolds, 29 Fed. Rep. 657.

6 United States Exp. Co. v. Allen, 39 Fed. Rep. 712.

§ 73 i. Where Federal question is involved. They have jurisdiction of a bill for injunction to restrain collection of a tax on corporate property, under a statute which impairs the obligation of contracts. They have jurisdiction of a suit for damages for obstruction of a stream by erecting a bridge. Where the original jurisdiction of a circuit court of the United States is invoked, it must appear at the outset, from the declaration or bill of the party suing, that the suit is of a character to confer jurisdiction.3 A substantial Federal question having been involved in a case at the outset, its elimination does not oust the court of jurisdiction. On questions of jurisdiction between State and Federal courts, the inquiry is not whether the pleadings in a State court expressly assert a right under the Federal constitution, but whether such a question was decided and decided adversely to the Federal right.5

1 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v Board Levee Comrs., 37 Fed. Rep. 24.

2 Sunflower River Packet Co. v. Georgia P R. Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 229. 3 Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 583.

4 Omaha Horse R. Co. v. Cable Tramway Co, 32 Fed. Rep. 727.

5 Craig v. Missouri, 4 Peters, 410; Miller v. Nichols, 4 Wheat. 311; Wilson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co, 2 Peters, 245; Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Peters, 380; Harris v. Denny, 3 Peters, 292; Davis v. Packard, 6 Peters, 41; Crowell v. Randall, 10 Peters, 368; Armstrong v. Athens Co. Treas., 16 Peters, 281; Neilson v. Lagow, 11 How. 98; Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How. 304; Bridge Prop'rs v. Hoboken Co., 1 Wall. 116; Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 232; Furman v. Nickoll, 8 Wall. 44; Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 422.

§ 73 j. What not a Federal question.-A case is not within the jurisdiction of a circuit court of the United States where the disputed questions are either not vital, or are questions of fact purely, or questions of mixed law and fact and not involving a decision of any controverted point as to applicability or construction of the

Th

Constitution or of any statute of the United States.1 action of a city imposing conditions on a gas company en tering into a contract to supply it with gas, however ardu ous they may be, does not raise any constitutional ques tion in respect to impairing the obligations of a contract Where the right of recovery depends alone upon the ques tion whether service of summons was made upon a perso who was at the time an agent of the defendant, whic was a foreign corporation, in no way depends upon th construction of the Constitution or laws of the Unite States. The question of the true construction of a wil depends in no degree upon the Constitution, laws o treaties of the United States. Whether the penal cod of Texas is valid, in the mode and matter of its enact ment, or whether an indictment is sufficient under a Stat constitution is not a Federal question. A suit brough to recover the amount of a judgment of the United State court, does not of itself involve a Federal question, and the fact that such a question may arise does not bring th case within the original jurisdiction of the court. 6

1 Murray v. Bluebird Min. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 385.

2 Hamilton Gaslight & Coke Co. v. Hamilton, 21 Ohio L. J. 94; 37 Fed Rep. 832.

3 Germania Ins. Co. v. Wisconsin, 119 U. S. 473.

4 Giles v. Little, 134 U. S. 645.

5 Davis v. State, 139 U. S. 651.

6 Metcalf v. Watertown, 123 U. S. 586.

§ 73 k. Suits arising under the Constitution. For the judicial power to extend to a violation of the Con stitution, it must be a case in law or in equity. It is the final arbiter of constitutional construction, and may re ceive from the legislature the power to construe every constitutional law. 2 The act must be clearly subversive of the constitution3-a clear violation-and the objec tion must not be doubtful.5 It extends over statutes, whether passed by a State legislature or by Congress which are claimed to be in contravention of the Constitu tion of the United States. 6 So the circuit court has juris diction of a suit arising under a State law violating the obligations of a contract; but not to statutes claimed to The circuit court be void under a State constitution. 8

has jurisdiction of a suit brought to restrain the construction of a bridge over the navigable waters of the United States, the erection of which is authorized by an act of Congress.9

1 Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264. See Railroad Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 135.

2 Vanhorne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Cohens v, Virginia, 6 Wheat 264; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506; S. C. 3 Wis. 1; Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247.

3 Turner v. Athans, 6 Neb. 54.

4 Central C, R. R. Co. v. Twenty-third St. R. R. Co., 54 How. Pr. 168; Bennington v. Park, 50 Vt. 178.

5 U. S. v. Jackson, 3 Sawy. 62; People v. Brinkerhoff, 68 N. Y. 259.

6 Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 399; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Branch, 137; Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 625.

7 State Lottery Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 3 Wood, 222.

8 Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 399.

9 Miller v. New York, 13 Blatchf. 479.

2

§ 73 1. Suits under United States statutes and treaties.-Congress may grant exclusive jurisdiction to United States courts over suits arising under the laws of the United States.1 Their jurisdiction covers every legislative act of Congress, so they are the instruments provided in administering security to an officer acting in the discharge of his duties;3 as seeking protection under a law is a case arising under that law. If the right of property in the subject-matter is given or created by an act of Congress, it is within the judicial power of the United States. A suit arises out of a law of the United States when the controversy turns upon the proper construction or application of such law; but it must be shown how the action arises under the law;7 and it is not sufficient that the construction of the law is incidentally brought in question; so the circuit court has jurisdiction of a suit involving the construction of land patents granted by the United States;' or of actions under the bankrupt law;10 or under the patent laws;11 or where a party claims title under the revenue laws, when he shows that his title in that respect is disputed; 12 as the right of a party must have its origin in the law;13 so it has jurisdiction on a supersedeas bond given upon suing out a writ of error to the Supreme Court, as this arises under a law of the United States;14 but a suit based on

filse representations arises out of a fraud, and not out an act of Congress. 15 A State may file a bill to restra a collector from levying, under the internal revenue law on property owned by the State. 16 If the action aris under a treaty, the matter in dispute must exceed fi hundred dollars.17 An action brought to enjoin a ci from enforcing an act of the State legislature prohibiti the employment of Chinese labor on public works of t State or the municipality, arises under a United Stat treaty. Where entry beneath the surface of mini land is claimed to be made under the mining laws of t United States, the case is within the jurisdiction of t United States circuit court. 19

1 Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410; Voorhees v, Frisbie, 8 Bank. Reg. 1 See N. O. Railroad Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 140; Cohens v. Virgin 6 Whart. 264; Osborne v. Bank, 9 Wheat, 738; Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wi 247; Gold W. & W. Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199; Tennessee v. Davis, U. S. 257. See Railroad Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 135.

2 Ableman v, Booth, 21 Howe, 506; Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall, 247.
3 Hodgson v. Millward, 3 Grant, 412.

4 Hodgson v. Millward, 3 Grant, 412; Kulp v. Rickets, 3 Grant, 420
5 Bank v. Roberts, 4 Conn. 313.

6 Hatch v. Wallamet Iron B. Co., 11 The Reporter, 630.

7 Dowell v. Griswold, 5 Sawy, 39.

8 Dowell v. Griswold, 5 Sawy, 39.

9 Hills v. Hompton, 4 Sawy. 195.

10 Tift v. Iron Clad Manuf. Co., 16 Blatchf. 43.

11 Celluloid Manuf. Co. v. Goodyear D. V. Co, 13 Blatchf. 375

12 Ex parte Smith, 94 U. S. 455.

13 Dowell v. Griswold, 5 Sawy. 39.

14 Miller v. New York, 13 Blatchf. 469.

15 Seymour v. Phillips, 7 Bliss. 460.

16 Merserole v. U P. R. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 356.

17 Georgia v. Atkins, 1 Abb. U. S. 22; S. C. 35 Ga. 315.

18 Baker v. Portland, 5 Sawy. 566.

19 Cheeseman v. Shreve, 37 Fed. Rep. 36.

Controversies in which the Unite § 73 m. States is plaintiff or petitioner. The limitation on th jurisdiction of circuit courts, under Act of Congress Au 13, 1888, to cases involving $2,000, does not apply to co troversies in which the United States is plaintiff or pet tioner. The circuit court has jurisdiction of a bill equity filed by the United States against the debtor