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

Manner of summoning jurors—net of September 24, 1789, sec. 29; act of April 29, 1802, chap. 31. Jurymen de talibus—act of September 24, 1789, chap. 20. , (b) As to cases in which States, or alleged States, are parties, the following cases are referred to: The rhorntpp Nition r The State of Georgia, 5 Peters, 1. New Jersey v. The State of New York, 5 Peters, 284 Ex parte Juan Madrazzo 7 Peters, 627. The State of Rhode Island v. The State of Massachu- setts 12*Peters ,651 cXns’t, The state of Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 ; 5 Cond. Rep. 90. NewYork v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 3. Fowler v. Lindsay et al., 3 Dall. 411.  FIRST CONGRESS. Ses s . I. Ch . 20. 1789. 81 or vice consul, shall be a party.(a) And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court, in all actions at law against citizens of the United States, shall be by jury. The Supreme Court shall also have appellate Sup. Court appellate juris- jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in diction. the cases herein after specially provided for;(b) and shall have power Writs of Pro- to issue writs of prohibition(c) to the district courts, when proceeding as hibition. courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus,(d) Of Mandamus. in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. Sec . 14. And be it further enacted, That all the before-mentioned Courts may issue writs scire courts of the United States, shall have power to issue writs of scire facias, habeas facias, habeas corpus,(e) and all other writs not specially provided for corpus, &c. (a) The United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467 ; 6 Cond. Rep. 394. Davis v. Packard, 6 Peters, 41. (&) As to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, see the cases collected in Peters’s Digest, “ Supreme Court,” “ Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,” and the following cases : The United States v. Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 108; 2 Cond. Rep. 434. Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 144. United States v. Moore, 3 Cranch, 159 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 480. Owings v. Norwood’s Lessee, 5 Cranch, 344; 2 Cond. Rep. 275. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304; 3 Cond. Rep. 575. Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 3 Cranch, 268; 1 Cond. Rep. 524. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; 5 Cond. Rep. 225. Smith v. The State of Maryland, 6 Cranch, 286 ; 2 Cond. Rep. 377. Inglee v. Coolidge, 2 Wheat. 363 ; 4 Cond. Rep. 155. Nicholls et al. v. Hodges Ex’ors, 1 Peters, 562. Buel et al. v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312 ; 5 Cond. Rep. 445. Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat. 311 ; 4 Cond. Rep. 465. Matthews v. Zane et al., 7 Wheat. 164; 5 Cond. Rep. 265. M‘Cluny v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598 ; 5 Cond. Rep. 197. Houston v. Moore, 3 Wheat. 433 ; 3 Cond. Rep. 286. Montgomery v. Hernandez et al., 12 Wheat. 129 ; 6 Cond. Rep. 475. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; 5 Cond. Rep. 90. Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448; 5 Cond. Rep. 134. Weston et al. v. The City Council of Charleston, 2 Peters, 449. Hickie v. Starke et al., 1 Peters, 94. Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Peters, 380. M'Bride v. Hoey, 11 Peters, 167. Ross v. Barland et. al., 1 Peters, 655. The City of New Orleans v. De Armas, 9 Peters, 224. Crowell v. Ran- dell, 10 Peters, 368. Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117; 6Cond. Rep. 462. Menard v. Aspasia, 5 Peters, 505. Worcester v. The State of Georgia, 6 Peters, 515. The United States v. Moore, 3 Cranch, 159; 1 Cond. Rep. 480. (c) Prohibition. Where the District Court of the United States has no jurisdiction of a cause brought before it, a prohibition will be issued from the Supreme Court to prevent proceedings. The United States v. Judge Peters, 3 Dall. 121 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 60. (d) Mandamus. The following cases have been decided on the power of the Supreme Court to issue a mandamus. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; 1 Cond. Rep. 267. M‘Cluny v. Silliman, 2 Wheat. 369 ; 4 Cond. Rep. 162. United States v. Lawrence, 3 Dall. 42; 1 Cond. Rep. 19. United States v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 60. Ex parte Burr, 9 Wheat. 529; 5 Cond. Rep. 660. Parker v. The Judges of the Circuit Court of Maryland, 12 Wheat. 561 ; 6 Cond. Rep. 644. Ex parte Roberts et al., 6 Peters, 216. Ex parte Davenport, 6 Peters, 661. Ex parte Bradstreet, 12 Peters, 174; 7 Peters, 634; 8 Peters, 588. Life and Fire Ins. Comp, of New York v. Wilson’s heirs, 8 Peters, 291. On a mandamus a superior court will never direct in what manner the discretion of the inferior tribunal shall be exercised; but they will, in a proper case, require an inferior court to decide. Ibid. Life and Fire Ins. Comp, of New York v. Adams, 9 Peters, 571. Ex parte Story, 12 Peters, 339. Ex parte Jesse Hoyt, collector, &c., 13 Peters, 279. A writ of mandamus is not a proper process to correct an erroneous judgment or decree rendered in an inferior court. This is a matter which is properly examinable on a writ of error, or an appeal to a proper appellate tribunal. Ibid. Writs of mandamus from the Circuit Courts of the United States. A Circuit Court of the United States has power to issue a mandamus to a collector, commanding him to grant a clearance. Gilchrist et al. v. Collector of Charleston, 1 Hall’s Admiralty Law Journal, 429. The power of the Circuit Court to issue the writ of mandamus is confined exclusively to those cases in which it may be necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction. M‘Intire v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504; 2 Cond. Rep. 588. The Circuit Courts of the United States have no power to issue writs of mandamus after the practice of the King’s Bench ; but only where they are necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction. Smith v. Jackson, Paine’s C. C. R. 453. (e) Habeas corpus. Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch, 448 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 594 ; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75; 2 Cond. Rep. 33. The writ of habeas corpus does not lie to bring up a person confined in the prison bounds upon a capias ad satisfaciendum, issued in a civil suit. Ex parte Wilson, 6 Cranch, 52 ; 2 Cond. Rep. 300. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; 5 Cond. Rep. 225. The power of the Supreme Court to award writs of habeas corpus is conferred expressly on the court by the 14th section of the judicial act, and has been repeatedly exercised. No doubt exists respecting the power. No law of the United States prescribes the cases in which this great writ shall be issued, nor the power of the court over the party brought up by it. The term used in the constitution is one which is well understood, and the judicial act authorizes the court, and all other courts of the United States and the judges thereof to issue the writ “ for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of commit- ment.” Ex parte Tobias Watkins, 3 Peters, 201. As the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is appellate, it must be shown to the court that the court has power to award a habeas corpus, before one will be granted. Ex parte Milburn, 9 Peters, 704. Vol . I.—11 82 FIRST CONGRESS. Sf .ss . I. Ch . 20. 1789. Act of 1793, by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective ch. 22; act of jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. And 1807, ch. 13; act of 1818, ch. that either of the justices of the supreme court, as well as judges of the 83; act of Feb. district courts, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the 1819; act of purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.—Provided, That May 20, 1826, ch. 124. writs of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to prisoners in gaol, un- Limitation of less where they are in custody, under or by colour of the authority of writs of habeas the United States, or are committed for trial before some court of the corpus. same, or are necessary to be brought into court to testify. Parties shall Sec . 15. And be it further enacted, That all the said courts of the produce books United States, shall have power in the trial of actions at law, on motion and writings. and due notice thereof being given, to require the parties to produce books or writings in their possession or power, which contain evidence pertinent to the issue, in cases and under circumstances where they might be compelled to produce the same by the ordinary rules of pro- ceeding in chancery; and if a plaintiff shall fail to comply with such order, to produce books or writings, it shall be lawful for the courts respectively, on motion, to give the like judgment for the defendant as in cases of nonsuit; and if a defendant shall fail to comply with such order, to produce books or writings, it shall be lawful for the courts respectively on motion as aforesaid, to give judgment against him or her by default.(a) Suits in equi- Sec . 16. And be it further enacted, That suits in equity shall not be ty limited. sustained in either of the courts of the United States, in any case where plain, adequate and complete remedy may be had at law.(b) The act of Congress authorizing the writ of habeas corpus to be issued “ for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of commitment,” applies as well to cases of commitment under civil as those of criminal process. See Chief Justice Marshall, 2 Brocken C. C. R. 447. Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 232. United States v. French, 1 Gallis’s C. C. R. 2. Holmes v. Jennison, Governor of the State of Ver- mont 14 Peters, 540. (a)’it is sufficient for one party to suggest that the other is in possession of a paper, which he has, un- der the act of Congress, given him notice to produce at the trial, without offering other prom of the fact; and the party so called upon must discharge himself of the consequences of not producing it, by affidavit or other proof that he has it not in his power to produce it. Hylton v. Brown, 1 Wash. C. C. K. 2J8. The court will not, upon a notice of the defendant to the plaintiff to produce a title paper to the land in dispute, which is merely to defeat the plaintiff’s title, compel him to do so; unless the defendant first shows title to the land. Merely showing a right of possession is not sufficient to entitle him to the aid of a court of chancery, or of the Supreme Court, to compel a discovery of papers which are merely to defeat the plaintiff’s title without strengthening the defendant’s. It is sufficient, in order to entitle him to call for papers to show the title to the land, although none is shown in the papers. Ibid. Where one party in a cause wishes the production of papers supposed to be m the possession of the other, he must give notice to produce them : if not produced, he may give inferior evidence ot their con- tents. But if it is his intention to nonsuit the plaintiff, or if the plaintiff requiring the papers means to obtain a judgment by default, under the 15th section of the judicial act, he is bound to give the opposite party notice that he means to move the court for an order upon him to produce the papers, or on a failure so to do, to award a nonsuit or judgment, as the case may be. Bas v. Steele, 3 Wash C. C. K. 381. No advantage can be taken of the non-production of papers, unless ground is laid for presuming that the papers were, at the time notice was given, in the possession or power