Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

the Supreme Court, and the district judge of such districts, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum? Provided, That no district judge shall give a vote in any case of appeal or error from his own decision; but may assign the reasons of such his decision.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the first session of the said First session circuit court in the several districts shall commence at the times follow. of the circuit

courts; when ing, to wit: in New Jersey on the second, in New York on the fourth, holden? in Pennsylvania on the eleventh, in Connecticut on the twenty-second, (Obsolete.] and in Delaware on the twenty-seventh, days of April next; in Massachusetts on the third, in Maryland on the seventh, in South Carolina on the twelfth, in New Hampshire on the twentieth, in Virginia on the twenty-second, and in Georgia on the twenty-eighth, days of May next, and the subsequent sessions in the respective districts on the like days of every sixth calendar month afterwards, except in South Carolina, where the session of the said court shall commence on the first, and in Georgia where it shall commence on the seventeenth day of October, and except when any of those days shall happen on a Sunday, and then the session shall commence on the next day following. And the ses Where holden. sions of the said circuit court shall be held in the district of New Hampshire, at Portsmouth and Exeter alternately, beginning at the first; in the district of Massachusetts, at Boston; in the district of Connecticut, alternately at Hartford and New Haven, beginning at the last; in the district of New York, alternately at New York and Albany, beginning at the first; in the district of New Jersey, at Trenton; in the district of Pennsylvania, alternately at Philadelphia and Yorktown, beginning at the first ; in the district of Delaware, alternately at New Castle and Dover, beginning at the first; in the district of Maryland, alternately at Annapolis and Easton, beginning at the first; in the district of Virginia, alternately at Charlottesville and Williamsburgh, beginning at the first; in the district of South Carolina, alternately at Columbia and Charleston, beginning at the first; and in the district of Georgia, alternately at Savannah and Augusta, beginning at the first. And the circuit courts shall

Circuit courts.

Special ses have power to hold special sessions for the trial of criminal causes at any sions. other time at their discretion, or at the discretion of the Supreme Court.(a)

(a) The sessions of the Circuit Courts have been regulated by the following acts: In ALABAMA-act of March 3, 1837. In ARKANSAS—act of March 3, 1837. In CONNECTICUT-act of September 24, 1789; act of April 13, 1792 ; act of March 2, 1793; act of March 3, 1797 ; act of April 29, 1802; act of May 13, 1826. In DELAWARE-act of September 24, 1789 ; act of March 3, 1797; act of April 29, 1802 ; act of March 24, 1804; act of March 3, 1837. In GEORGIA-act of September 24, 1789; act of August 11, 1790; act of April 13, 1792 ; act of March 3, 1797; act of April 29, 1802; act of May 13, 1826 ; act of Jan. 21, 1829. KENTUCKY-act of March 3, 1801 ; act of March 8, 1802; act of March 2, 1803; act of Feb. 27, 1807 ; act of March 22, 1808; April 22, 1824. LOUISIANA-act of March 3, 1837. Maine -act of March 3, 1801 ; act of March 8, 1802; act of March 30, 1820. MARYLAND-act of Sept. 24, 1789; act of March 3, 1797; act of April 29, 1802; act of Feb. 11, 1830; act of March 3, 1837. ‘MAS: SACHUSETTS—act of Sept. 24, 1789; act of March 3, 1791; act of June 9, 1794; act of March 2, 1793; act of March 3, 1797; act of March 3, 1801 ; act of March 8, 1802; act of April 29, 1802; act of March 26, 1812. MISSOURI—act of March 3, 1837. MISSISSIPPI-act of March 3, 1839. New HAMPSHIRE-act of Sept. 24, 1789; act of March 3, 1791; act of April 13, 1792 ; act of March 2, 1793; act of March 3, 1797; act of March 3, 1801 ; act of April 29, 1802 ; act of March 6, 1812. NEW JERSEY-act of September 24, 1789; act of March 3, 1797 ; act of April 2, 1802. NEW YORK-act of September 24, 1789; act of March 3, 1791; act of April 13, 1792 ; act of March 2, 1793; act of March 3, 1797 ; act of April 29, 1802 ; act of March 3, 1825 ; act of February 10, 1832; act of May 13, 1836; act of March 3, 1837. NORTH CAROLINA-act of September 24, 1789; act of April 13, 1792 ; act of March 2, 1793; act of March 31, 1796 ; act of March 3, 1797 ; act of July 5, 1797 ; act of April 29, 1802; act of March 8, 1806; act of February 4, 1807. Ohro-act of February 24, 1807; act of March 22, 1808; act of April 22, 1824 ; act of May 20, 1826. PENNSYLVANIA-act of September 24, 1789; act of May 12, 1796 ; act of March 3, 1797; act of December 24, 1799 ; act of April 29, 1802 ; act of March 3, 1837. Rhode ISLAND-act of June 23, 1790; act of March 3, 1791 ; act of March 2, 1793; act of May 22, 1796 ; act of March 3, 1797 ; act of March 3, 1801 ; act of March 8, 1802; act of April 29, 1802; act of March 26, 1812. SOUTH CAROLINA—act of September 24, 1789; act of August 11, 1790; act of March 3, 1797 ; act of April 29, 1802 ; act of April 14, 1816; act of May 25, 1824; act of March 3, 1825; act of May 4, 1826 ; act of February 5, 1829. TENNESSEE~act of February 24, 1807; act of March 22, 1808 ; act of March 10, 1812 ; act of January 13, 1831. VERMONT-act of March 2, 1791; act of March 2, 1793; act of May 27, 1796 ; act of March 3, 1797 ; act of April 29, 1802 ; act of March 22, 1816. VIRGINIA—act of September 24, 1789; act of March 3, 1791 ; act of April 13, 1792 ; act of March 3, 1797 ; act of April 29, 1802; act of March 2, 1837.

Supreme court Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court may, by adjourned by

any one or more of its justices being present, be adjourned from day to day one or more justices ; circuit until a quorum be convened; and that a circuit court may also be adcourts adjourn. journed from day to day by any one of its judges, or if none are pre

sent, by the marshal of the district until a quorum be convened :(a) and that a district court, in case of the inability of the judge to attend at the

commencement of a session, may by virtue of a written order from the District courts said judge, directed to the marshal of the district, be adjourned by the adjourned. said marshal to such day, antecedent to the next stated session of the

said court, as in the said order shall be appointed; and in case of the death of the said judge, and his vacancy not being supplied, all process, pleadings and proceedings of what nature soever, pending before the said court, shall be continued of course until the next stated session

after the appointment and acceptance of the office by his successor. The courts Sec. 7. And be it (further) enacted, That the Supreme Court, and the have

power to district courts shall have power to appoint clerks for their respective appoint clerks.

courts,(b) and that the clerk for each district court shall be clerk also of the circuit court in such district, and each of the said clerks shall, before he enters upon the execution of his office, take the following oath

or affirmation, to wit: "I, A. B., being appointed clerk of affirmation,

do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all the orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of the said court, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties of my said office, according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God.” Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath. And the said clerks shall also severally give bond, with sufficient sureties, (to be approved of by the Supreme and district courts respectively) to the United States, in the sum of two thousand dollars, faithfully to discharge the duties of his office, and seasonably to record the decrees, judgments and determinations of the court of which he is clerk.

Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties

of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to Oath of jus. wit: “I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justices of supreme tice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the of the district rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as

according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of

the United States. So help me God." District courts

Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the district courts() shall exclusive juris. have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all

crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the

court.

[ocr errors]

By the act of March 10, 1838, the Justice of the Supreme Court is required to attend but one circuit in the districts of Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan.

By an act passed in 1844, the Justices of the Supreme Court are empowered to hold but one session of the Circuit Court in each district in their several circuits. The Judges of the District Courts hold the other sessions of the Circuit Court in their several districts.

(a) The provisions of law on the subject of the adjournments of the Supreme Court in addition to the 6th section of this act, are, that in case of epidemical disease, the court may be adjourned to some other place than the seat of government. Act of February 25, 1799.

(b) By the 2d section of the act entitled “ an act in amendment of the acts respecting the judicial system of the United States," passed February 28, 1839, chap. 36, it is provided that all the circuit courts of the United States shall have the appointment of their own clerks, and in case of disagreement between the judges, the appointment shall be made by the presiding judge of the court.” See ex parte Duncan N. Hennen, 13 Peters, 230.

(C) The further legislation on the subject of the jurisdiction and powers of the District Courts are : the act of June 5, 1794, ch. 50, sec. 6; act of May 10, 1800, chap. 51, sec.5; act of February 24, 1807, chap. 13; act of February 24, 1807, chap. 16; act of March 3, 1815 ; act of April 16, 1816, chap. 56, sec. 6 ; act of April 20, 1918, chap. 103; act of May 15, 1820, chap. 106, sec. 4; act of March 3, 1823, chap. 71.

high seas; where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding (Acts of June thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of im- 5,1794, sect. 6; prisonment not exceeding six months, to be inflicted ; and shall also 1807 ; act of have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and March 3, 1815,

sect. 4.] maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navi

Original cog. gation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on nizance in mari. waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons time causes and burtben, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas ;(a) the laws of the saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where United States. the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States. (6) And shall also have cognizance, con

Concurrent current with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the

jurisdiction. case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.(c) And shall also have cognizance, concurrent as last mentioned, of all suits at common law where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. And shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the courts of the several States, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid.(d) And the trial of issues in fact, in the district Trial of fact courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime juris- ) by jury. diction, shall be by jury.

Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That the district court in Kentucky district shall, besides the jurisdiction aforesaid, have jurisdiction trict court.

Kentucky dis. of all other causes, except of appeals and writs of error, hereinafter made [Obsolete.) cognizable in a circuit court, and shall proceed therein in the same

(a) Jurisdiction of the District Courts in cases of admiralty seizures, under laws of impost, navigation and trade. M.Donough v. Danery, 3 Dall. 188; 1 Cond. Rep. 94. The United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; 1 Cond. Rep. 132. Glass et al. v. The Betsey, 3 Dall. 6; 1 Cond. Rep. 10. The Alerta, 3 Cranch, 359 ; 3 Cond. Rep. 425. The Merino et al., 9 Wheat. 391 ; 5 Cond. Rep. 623. The Josefa Segunda, 10 Wheat. 312 ; 6 Cond. Rep. 111. Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 2; 2 Cond. Rep. 2.

The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 691 ; 5 Cond. Rep. 472. Penhallow et al. v. Doane's Adm’rs, 3 Dall. 54; 1 Cond. Rep. 21. United States v. Richard Peters, 3 Dall. 121 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 60. Hudson et al. v. Guestier, 6 Cranch, 281 ; 2 Cond. Rep. 374. Brown v. The United States, 8 Cranch, 110; 3 Cond. Rep. 56. The Sarah, ś Wheat. 391 ; 5 Cond. Rep. 472. The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546; 4 Cond. Rep. 322. Slocum v. Maybury, 2 Wheat, 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1. Gelston et al. v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246 ; 4 Cond. Rep. 244. The Bolina, 1 Gallis' C.C. R. 75. The Robert Fulton, 1 Paine's C.C. R. 620 ; Bee's D. C. R. 11. De Lovio v. Boit et al., 2 Gallis' C. C. R. 398. The Abby, 1 Mason's Rep. 360. The Little Ann, Paine's C. C. R. 40. Davis v. A New Brig, Gilpin's D. C. R. 473. The Catharine, 1 Adm. Decis. 104.

(6) An information against a vessel under the act of Congress of May 22, 1794, on account of an alleged exportation of arms, is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and an appeal from the District to the Circuit Court, in such a case is sustainable. It is also a civil cause, and triable without the intervention of a jury, under the 9th section of the judicial act. The United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 132. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 691 ; 5 Cond. Rep. 472. The Abby, 1 Mason, 360. The Little Ann, Paine's C. C. R. 40.

When the District and State courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the right to maintain the jurisdiction attaches to that tribunal which first exercises it, and obtains possession of the thing. The Robert Fulton, Paine's C. C. R. 620.

(c) Burke v. Trevitt, 1 Mason, 96. The courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction of all seizures made on land water, for a breach of the laws of the United States, and any intervention of State authority, which by taking the thing seized out of the hands of the officer of the United States, might obstruct the exercise of this jurisdiction, is unlawful. Slocum v. Mayberry et al., 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1.

(d) Davis v. Packard, 6 Peters, 41. As an abstract question, it is difficult to understand on what ground a State court can claim jurisdiction of civil suits against foreign consuls. By the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; and the judiciary act of 1789 gives to the district courts of the United States, exclusively of the courts of the several States, jurisdiction of all suits against consuls and vice consuls, except for certain offences enumerated in this act. Davis v. Packard, 7 Peters, 276.

If a consul, being sued in a State court, omits to plead his privilege of exemption from the suit, and afterwards, on removing the judgment of the inferior court to a higher court by writ of error, claims the privilege, such an omission is not a waiver of the privilege. If this was to be viewed merely as a personal privilege, there might be grounds for such a conclusion. But it cannot be 80 considered; it is the privilege of the country or government which the consul represents. This is the light in which foreign ministers are considered by the law of nations; and our constitution and law secm to put consuls on the same footing in this respect. Ibid.

manner as a circuit court, and writs of error and appeals shall lie from decisions therein to the Supreme Court in the same causes, as from a

circuit court to the Supreme Court, and under the same regulations.(a) Maine district And the district court in Maine district shall, besides the jurisdiction court. [Obsolete.]

herein before granted, have jurisdiction of all causes, except of appeals and writs of error herein after made cognizable in a circuit court, and shall proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court: And writs of error shall lie from decisions therein to the circuit court in the district of Massachusetts in the same manner as from other district

courts to their respective circuit courts. Circuit courts Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That the circuit courts shall original cogni. have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several zance where the States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where pute exceeds the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five five hundred hundred dollars, and the United States are plaintiffs, or petitioners; or dollars.

an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the State where

the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State.(6) And shall have (a) By an act passed February 24, 1807, the Circuit Court jurisdiction of the District Court of Kentucky was abolished.

(6) The amount laid in the declaration is the sum in controversy. If the plaintiff receive less than the amount so claimed, the jurisdiction of the court is not affected. Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch, 229. Gordon v. Longest, 16 Peters, 97. Lessee of Hartshorn v. Wright, Peters' C. C. R. 64.

By the 5th section of the act of February 21, 1794, “ an act to promote the progress of the useful arts," &c., jurisdiction in actions for violations of patent rights, is given to the Circuit Courts. Also by the act of February 15, 1819, original cognizance, as well in equity as at law, is given to the Circuit Courts of all actions, and for the violation of copy rights. In such cases appeals lie to the Supreme Court of the United States. So also in cases of interest, or disability of a district judge. Act of May 8, 1792, sec. 11; act of March 2, 1809, sec. 1; act of March 3, 1821.

Jurisdiction in cases of injunctions on Treasury warrants of distress. Act of May 15, 1820, sec. 4. Jurisdiction in cases removed from State courts. Act of February 4, 1815, sec. 8; act of March 3, 1815, sec. 6.

Jurisdiction in cases of assigned debentures. Act of March 2, 1799.

Jurisdiction of crimes committed within the Indian territories. Act of March 30, 1830, sec, 15; act of April 30, 1916, sec. 4; act of March 3, 1817, scc. 2.

Jurisdiction in bankruptcy. Act of August 19, 1841, chap. 9, [repealed.]

Jurisdiction in cases where citizens of the same State claim title to land under a grant from a State other than that in which the suit is pending in a State court. Act of September 24, 1789, sec. 12. See Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wheat. 377; 4 Cond. Rep. 168.

Jurisdiction where officers of customs are parties. Act of February 4, 1815, sec. 8; act of March 3, 1815, sec. 6; act of March 3, 1817, sec. 2.

A circuit court though an inferior court in the language of the constitution, is not so in the language of the common law; nor are its proceedings subject to the scrutiny of those narrow rules, which the caution or jealousy of the courts at Westminster long applied to courts of that denomination ; but are entitled to as liberal intendments and presumptions in favour of their regularity, as those of any supreme court. Turner v. The Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8; 1 Cond. Rep. 205.

The Circuit Courts of the United States have cognizance of all offences against the United States. What those offences are depends upon the common law applied to the sovereignty and authorities confided to the United States. The United States v. Coolidge, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 488, 495.

Where the jurisdiction of the federal courts has once attached, no subsequent change in the relation or condition of the parties in the progress of the cause, will oust that jurisdiction. The United States v. Meyers, 2 Brocken, C. C. R. 516.

All the cases arising under the laws of the United States are not, per se, among the cases comprised within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, under the provisions of the 11th section of the judiciary act of 1789. The Postmaster General v. Stockton and Stokes, 12 Peters, 524.

Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States in suits between aliens and citizens of another State than that in which the suit is brought :

The courts of the United States will entertain jurisdiction of a cause where all the parties are aliens, if none of them object to it. Mason et al. v. The Blaireau, 2 Cranch, 240; 1 Cond. Rep. 397.

The Supreme Court understands the expressions in the act of Congress, giving jurisdiction to the courts of the United States " where an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State," to mean that each distinct interest should be represented by persons, all of whom have a right to sue, or may be sued in the federal courts: that is, when the interest is joint, each of the persons concerned in that interest must be competent to sue or be liable to be sued in those courts. Strawbridge v. Curtis, 3 Cranch, 267; 1 Cond. Rep. 523.

Neither the Constitution nor the act of Congress regards the subject of the suit, but the parties to it. Mossman's Ex’ors v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; Cond. Rep. 210.

When the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court depends on the character of the parties, and such party consists of a number of individuals, each one must be competent to sue in the courts of the United States, or jurisdiction cannot be entertained. Ward v. Arredendo et al., Paine's C. C. R. 410. Straw. bridge v. Curtis, 3 Cranch, 267; 1 Cond. Rep. 523.

The courts of the United States have not jurisdiction, unless it appears by the record that it belongs

to civil suits.

notes,

causes from state courts.

exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the

Exclusive cog. authority of the United States,(a) except where this act otherwise pro- crimes and of.

nizance of vides, or the laws of the United States shall otherwise direct, and con- fences cogniza, current jurisdiction with the district courts of the crimes and offences, ble under the cognizable therein.x But no person shall be arrested in one district for 9 Wild Sithe

United States, trial in another, in any civil action before a circuit or district court.(6) No person to And no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against be arrested in an inhabitant of the United States, by any original process in

one district for any other

trial in another district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be on any civil suit. found at the time of serving the writ, nor shall any district or circuit

Limitation as court have cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any pro

Actions on missory note or other chose in action in favour of an assignee, unless a promissory suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment had been made, except in cases of foreign bills

Circuit courts of exchange.(c) And the circuit courts shall also have appellate juris- shall also have diction from the district courts under the regulations and restrictions appellate jurisherein after provided.(d)

diction. Sec. 12. And be it further enacted, That if a suit be commenced in Matter in die any state court against an alien, or by a citizen of the state in which pilte above 500

dollars. the suit is brought against a citizen of another state, and the matter in

Removal of dispute exceeds the aforesaid sum or value of five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, to be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court; and the defendant shall, at the tiine of entering his appearance in such state court, file a petition for the removal of the cause for trial into the next circuit court, to be held in the district where the suit is pending, or if in the district of Maine to the district court next to be holden therein, or if in Kentucky district to the district court next to be holden therein, and offer good and sufficient surety for his entering in such court, on the first day of its session, copies of said process against him, and also for his there appearing and entering special bail in the cause,

Special bail. if special bail was originally requisite therein, it shall then be the duty of the state court to accept the surety, and proceed no further in the cause, and any bail that may have been originally taken shall be discharged, and the said copies being entered as aforesaid, in such court of the United States, the cause shall there proceed in the same manner as if it had been brought there by original process.(e) And any attachto them, as that the parties are citizens of different States. Wood v. Wagnon, 2 Cranch, 9; 1 Cond. Rep. 335.

Where the parties to a suit are such as to give the federal courts jurisdiction, it is immaterial that they are administrators or executors, and that those they represent were citizens of the same State. Chap. pedelaine et al. v. Decheneaux, 4 Cranch, 306; 2 Cond. Rep. 116. Childress et al. v. Emory et al., 8 Wheat. 642; 5 Cond. Rep. 547. See also Brown v. Strode, 5 Cranch, 303; 2 Cond. Rep. 205. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382; 1 Cond. Rep. 170. Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699; 5 Cond. Rep. 561. Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; 2 Cond. Rep. 332. Sere et al. v. Pitot et al., 6 Cranch, 332; 2 Cond. Rep.

Shute v. Davis, Peters' C. C. R. 431. Flanders v. The Ætna Ins. Com., 3 Mason, C. C. R. 158. Kitchen v. Sullivan et al., 4 Wash. C. C. R. 84. Briggs v. French, 2 Sumner's C. C. R. 252.

(a) The Circuit Courts of the United States have jurisdiction of a robbery committed on the high gens under the 8th section of the act of April 30, 1790, although such robbery could not, if committed on land, be punished with death. The United States v. Palmer et al., 3 Wheat. 610; 4 Cond. Rep. 352. See The United States v. Coolidge et al., 1 Gallis' C. C. R. 489, 495. The United States v. Coombs, 12 Peters, 72.

The Circuit Courts have no original jurisdiction in suits for penalties and forfeitures arising under the laws of the United States, but the District Courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Ketland v. The Cassius, 2 Dall. 365.

(b) The petitioner was arrested in Pennsylvania, by the marshal of the district of Pennsylvania, under an attachment from the Circuit Court of Rhode Island, for a contempt in not appearing in that court after a monition, served upon him in the State of Pennsylvania, to answer in a prize cause as to a certain bale of goods condemned to the captors, which had come into the possession of Peter Graham, the petitioner. Heid, that the circuit and district courts of the United States cannot, either in suits at law or equity, send their process into another district, except where specially authorized so to do by some act of Con. gress. Ex parte Peter Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 456.

(C) Bean v. Smith, 2 Mason's C. C. R. 252. Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheat. 146; 5 Cond. Rep. 44. Mol. lan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537; 5 Cond. Rep. 666. (d) Smith v, Jacks Paine's C. C. R. 453.

(e) The Judge of a State Court to which an application is made for the removal of a cause into a court of the United States must exercise a legal discretion as to the right claimed to remove the cause;

389.

« ZurückWeiter »