Imágenes de páginas

NOTE.–After admission into the Union a State cannot control the records of the former Territorial Courts.-Hunt vs. Palao, 4 H., p. 589. Territorial Courts held by Judges appointed for four years do not exercise any judicial power conferred by Constitution of the United States on the General Government.-Am. Ins. Co. vs. Canter, 1 Pet., p. 511. These Courts were created by Florida Territorial Legislature.-Id. No part of the judicial power can be reposed in an executive officer.-Beatty vs. U. S., Dev. C. C., p. 231. In deciding on claims arising under a treaty a District Judge acts not under judicial constitutional authority but as a Commissioner under Act of Congress.-U. S. vs. Ferreira, 13 H., p. 40; U. S. vs. Todd, id., p. 52. State and Federal Courts are as distinct as the Courts of two different nations, except where special provision is made by Congress.-Rogers vs. Cincinnati, 5 McL., p. 337. Inferior tribunals may be erected by Congress, and pending proceedings be transferred to them and from one tribunal to another.Stuart vs. Laird, 1 Cr., p. 299. Abolishing fees of Justices did not affect those in office in District of Columbia at the time. They were judicial officers.U. S. vs. Moore, 3 Cr., p. 160. The authority given to the Supreme Court by the Act establishing the 'judiciary of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, is not warranted by the Constitution.-Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch, A mandamus against the Secretary of the Navy will not lie at the instance of an officer to enforce the payment of his pay.-Brashear vs. Mason, 6 Howard, p. 92.

p. 176.

2. In all cases affecting embassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

NOTE.-JURISDICTION must be clearly shown, or the case will be dismissed.-U. S. vs. New Bed. Bri., 1 W. & M., p. 401; U. S. vs. Ta-wan-ga-ca, Hemp., p. 304. The Federal Courts have powers as distinct in their exercise as those of foreign Governments.-Ex Parte Robinson, 6 McL., p. 355. Every Government may exercise jurisdiction over persons and property

within its limits, but not beyond them.-Lincoln vs. Tower, 2 McL., p. 473. All common law remedies between proper parties may be administered by the Federal Courts without legislation. Jolly vs. Terrehaute Drawbridge Co., 6 McL., p. 237. States cannot enlarge, diminish, or in any way affect the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. This is fixed by the Federal Constitution.-U. S. vs. Drennen, Hemp., p. 320. The words of the Constitution, used affirmatively in declaring the original jurisdiction of the Sup. Court of the United States, are construed negatively as to all other cases.-Ex Parte Vallandigham, 1 Wall., p. 252. In cases affecting the foreign Consuls, the Sup. Court has original, but not exclusive jurisdiction.-U. S. vs. Ravara, 2 D., p. 297. The term “foreign nation" does not include an Indian tribe in the U.S., so as to entitle them to sue a State in the Union in the U. S. Supreme Court.-Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, 5 Pet., p. 1. That his representative be sued only in the U. S. Courts, is a privilege of a foreign sovereign; it is not a personal privilege, and is not waived by not being raised in the Court below.-Davis vs. Packard, 7 Pet., p. 276. The 25th section of the Act of 24th September, 1789—-giving the Sup. Court jurisdiction to review decisions of State Courts in certain casesheld constitutional.-Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wh., p. 264. Fifth section of Act of March 3d, 1863, for removal of certain causes from State into Circuit Courts, held constitutional in Athon vs. Morton, cited in 15 Am. L. R., p. 556; Milton vs. Wilgus, cited id., p. 557; but, so far as the Act of 1863 provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Claims it is unconstitutional.—Gordon vs. U.S., 2 Wall., p. 561; same case, 14 Am. L. R., p. 111. Issuing process in violation of the Constitution confers no jurisdiction.Greene vs. Briggs, 1 Curt., p. 311. Under the Civil Rights Bill of 1866, Federal Courts have jurisdiction to require observance of negro's right to testify, denied under State law.-U. S. vs. Rhodes, 16 Am. L. R., p. 233. Sup. Court has no jurisdiction to decide or try the question whether a particular law was passed or enacted by a State or not.-Scott vs. Jones, 5 H., p. 343. An inchoate French or Spanish title cannot be given effect to or tried by a State Court. Exclusive jurisdiction necessarily attends exclusive legislation.U. S. vs. Ames, 1 W. & M.,

Consent by State to Federal Government, or Federal Government to State, to exercise jurisdiction, confers the jurisdictional right.-Id.; U. S. vs. Cornell, 2 Mass., p. 91; U. S. vs. Davis, 5 Mass., p. 356. The words of the Constitution declaring that “the judicial power shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” must be taken to refer to the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of England.—United States vs. McGill, 4 Dall., p. 426. The question whether the legality of the acts of the heads of departments be examinable by Courts of justice, must always depend on the nature of the act.—Marbury vs. Madison,. 1 Cranch, p. 137. In an action of ejectment between two citizens of the State where the lands lie, if the defendant set up an outstanding title in a British subject, which he contends is protected by treaty, and the highest State Court decides against the title thus set up, it is not a case in which a writ of error lies to the Supreme Court of the United States. This is not a case arising under the treaty, and the words of the Judiciary Act must be restrained by those of the Constitution.-Owing vs. Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch, p. 344. The appellate powers of the Supreme Court are given by the Constitution, but they are limited and regulated by the Acts of Congress.-Durousseau vs. The United States, 6 Cranch, p. 307. In what cases the Supreme Court of the United States has appellate jurisdiction from the decision of the highest Court of a State.-Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wheat., p. 264. A case of

p. 76.

p.2 law or equity arises under the Constitution, or a law of the United States, whenever its correct decision depends upon the construction of either.-Id., p. 379. The judicial power of every well constituted government must be coextensive with the legislative, and capable of deciding every judicial question growing out of the Constitution and laws.-Id. Where the words of the Constitution confer only appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court, original jurisdiction is clearly not granted; but where the words admit of appellate jurisdiction, the power to take cognizance of the suit originally does not necessarily negative the power to decide upon it on an appeal, if it may originate in a different Court.-Id., p. 397; also, Osborn et al. vs. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat., p. 738. In every case to which the judicial power extends, and in which original jurisdiction is not expressly given, that power shall be exercised in the appellate, and only in the appellate, form.-Id. When the subject is presented to the Court by a party who asserts his right in the form prescribed by law, it then becomes a case.-Osborn et al. vs. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat., p. 738. A corporation created

by, and transacting business in, a State, is to be deemed an inhabitant of the State, capable of being treated as a citizen for all purposes of suing and being sued.Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad Co. vs. Letson, 2 Howard, p. 497. The Act of Congress of February 26th, 1845, extending the jurisdiction of the District Courts to certain cases on the Lakes and navigable waters connecting the same, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.—Propeller Genessee Chief vs. Fitzhugh et al., 12 Howard, p. 443. The Courts of the United States, under the Constitution, have equity jurisdiction. - Neves et al. vs. Scott, 13 Howard, p. 268. The Federal Courts have no jurisdiction of common law offenses, and there is no abstract, pervading principle of the common law of the Union under which they can take jurisdiction.—Pennsylvania vs. Wheeling Bridge, 13 Howard, p. 519. Where relief can be given by the English chancery, similar relief may be given by the Courts of the Union.-Id.

ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION.-The grant in the Constitution of the United States of all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction does not extend to a cession of the waters in which those cases may arise, or of the general jurisdiction over them. The general jurisdiction adheres to the territory, as a portion of sovereignty not yet given away, and the residuary powers of legislation still remain in the State.-United States vs. Bevans, 3 Wheat., p. 336. The expression “admiralty and maritime jurisdiction” gives jurisdiction of all things done upon and relating to the sea.-De Lovio vs. Bosh et al., 2 Gallis, p. 468. The grant in the Constitution extending the judicial power “to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” is neither to be limited to, nor to be interpreted by, what were cases of admiralty jurisdiction in England when the Constitution was adopted.- Waring vs. Clark, 5 Howard, p. 441. Admiralty jurisdiction in the Courts of the United States is not taken away because the Courts of common law may have concurrent jurisdiction. Nor is a trial by jury any test of admiralty jurisdiction. The subject matter of a contract or service gives jurisdiction in admiralty; locality gives it in tort or collision.-Id. In cases of tort or collision happening upon the high seas, or within the ebb and flow of the tide, as far up a river as the tide ebbs and flows, though it may be infra corpus comitatus, Courts of admiralty of the United States have jurisdiction.-Id. The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction granted to the Government by the Constitution

[ocr errors]

is not limited to tide waters, but extends to all public navigable lakes and rivers, where commerce is carried on between different States or with a foreign nation.Propeller Genessee Chief vs. Fitzhugh, 12 Howard, p. 443. The eleventh amendment to the Constitution does not, it seems, extend to suits of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.-U. S. vs. Bright, Bright's Trial, p. 190; s. C., Bright, p. 9. Jurisdiction over all admiralty cases is given to District Courts by the Constitution and laws of the United States, but a case in admiralty does not, in fact, arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.-Am. Ins. Co. vs. Canter, 1 Pet., p. 512; Roberts vs. Skolfield, 8 Am. L. R., p. 156; The Young America, Newb., p. 101. Admiralty jurisdiction conferred upon Federal Courts is exclusive of those of the States.- The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall., p. 411; The Hine vs. Trevor, id., p. 556; and see The Globe, 2 Bl. C. C., p. 427; Tupper vs. The Isabella, 2 West., L. Mo., p. 253; The John Richards, Newb., p. 73; Ashbrook vs. The Golden Gate, id., p. 296. An action on a marine contract or a marine tort may be tried by proceeding “in personam" in the State Courts.—The Hine vs. Trevor, 4 Wall., p. 556. Misdemeanors on the high seas are constitutionally triable in the Federal Courts.-U. S. vs. Crawford, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs., p. 388. Suits by and against the U. S. Bank are constitutionally triable in the Circuit Courts.-Osborn vs. Bank of the U. S., 9 Wh., p. 738.


3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be put at such place or places as the Congress may, by law, have directed.

NOTE.- This provision is annotated under Article VI, “ Mode of Trial."-See amendment, post, ratified Dec. 15th, 1791.

JURY.-The right of trial by jury is a fundamental law, made sacred by the Constitution, and cannot be legislated away.—2 Dall., p. 309. The Legislature of Iowa passed a law directing a Court to decide matters of fact without the intervention of a jury. This was inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. Webster vs. Reid, 11 How., p. 437. By Article VII,

44_VOL. II.-POL.

« AnteriorContinuar »