An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. — reading text

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; 1 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  FIRST CONGRESS. Ses s . I. Ch . 20. 1789. 79 exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the Exclusive cog- authority of the United States,(a) except where this act otherwise pro- nizance of crimes and 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. But no person shall be arrested in one district for laws of the United States. trial in another, in any civil action before a circuit or district court.(b) No person to And no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against be arrested in one district for an inhabitant of the United States, by any original process in 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 to civil suits. 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 con- notes. tents 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 juris- diction. herein after provided.(d) Sec . 12. And be it further enacted, That if a suit be commenced in Matter in dis- any state court against an alien, or by a citizen of the state in which pute 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, ex- causes from clusive of costs, to be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court; state courts. and the defendant shall, at the time 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 dis- charged, 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 attach- to 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. 265. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382; 1 Cond. Rep. 170. Grade 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. 389. Shute v. Davis, Peters’ C. C. R. 431. Flanders v. The AEtna 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 seas 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. 488, 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. (6) 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. Held, 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. Jackson, 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; 80 FIRST CONGRESS. Sess . I. Ch . 20. 1789. Attachment of ment of the goods or estate of the defendant by the original process, goods holden to shall hold the goods or estate so attached, to answer the final judgment final judgment. in the same manner as by the laws of such state they would have been holden to answer final judgment, had it been rendered by the court in which the suit commenced. And if in any action commenced in a Title of land where value ex- state court, the title of land be concerned, and the parties are citizens ceeds 500 dol- of the same state, and the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value lars. of five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, the sum or value being made to appear to the satisfaction of the court, either party, before the trial, shall state to the court and make affidavit if they require it, that he claims and shall rely upon a right or title to the land, under a grant from a state other than that in which the suit is pending, and produce the original grant or an exemplification of it, except where the loss of public record's shall put it out of his power, and shall move that the adverse party inform the court, whether he claims a right or title to the land under a grant from the state in which the suit is pending; the said adverse [party] shall give such information, or otherwise not be allowed to plead such grant, or give it in evidence upon the trial, and if he in- forms that he does claim under such grant, the party claiming under the grant first mentioned may then, on motion, remove the cause for trial to the next circuit court to be holden in such district, or if in the district of Maine, to the court next to be holden therein ; or if in Ken- If in Maine and Kentucky, tucky district, to the district court next to be holden therein; but if he where causes is the defendant, shall do it under the same regulations as in the before- are removable. mentioned case of the removal of a cause into such court by an alien; [Obsolete.] and neither party removing the cause, shall be allowed to plead or give evidence of any other title than that by him stated as aforesaid, as the Issues in fact ground of his claim; and the trial of issues in fact in the circuit courts by jury. shall, in all suits, except those of equity, and of admiralty, and maritime jurisdiction, be by jury.(a.) Supreme Sec . 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall court exclusive have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a jurisdiction. state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction.(6.) And shall Proceedings have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against against public ministers. ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul, the defendant being entitled to the right to remove the cause under the law of the United States, on the facts of the case, (the judge of the State court could not legally prevent the removal;) the application for the removal having been made in proper form, it was the duty of the State court to proceed no further in tTio cause Gordon v. Longest, 16 Peters, 97. One great object in the establishment of the courts of the United States, and regulating their jurisdic- tion was to have a tribunal in each State presumed to be free from local influence and to which all who were non-residents or aliens, might resort for legal redress; and this object would be defeated if a judge in the exercise of any other than a legal discretion, may deny to the party entitled to it, a remo- val of his cause. Ibid. (a) The provisions of the laws of the United States relating to juries, and trials by jury are:—trial byjury—.act of September 24, 1789, chap. 20, sec. 10, sec. 12, sec. 15.—Exemption from attending on juries—act of May 7, 1800, chap. 46, sec. 4. Choice of jurors and qualification of juries—act of Sep- tember 24, 1789, chap. 20, sec. 29; act of May 13, 1800 ; act of July 20, 1840; act of March 3, 1841, chap. 19. Expired as to juries in Pennsylvania. Special jury act of April 29, 1802, chap. 31sec 30. -Jury in criminal cam-Lct of September 24, 1789, chap. 20, sec 29; act of April 30, 1790, chap. 9.