Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

No. 2530.

Book 4, tit. 3, chap. 2, sec. 1.

No. 2532.

CHAPTER II.—OF SUPREME, SUPERIOR, AND INFERIOR

COURTS.

2530. Courts of record are divided into supreme or superior courts, and inferior courts.

SECTION 1.-OF THE SUPREME OR SUPERIOR COURTS.

2531. A supreme court is one having jurisdiction over all other courts. Such a court possesses in general appellate jurisdiction, either by writ of error, or by appeal in other cases. The supreme or superior courts have their jurisdiction by the common law, and by the constitution of the United States, or of the state where located. And this common law jurisdiction cannot be taken away without the express negative words of a statute, unless by irresistible implication.(a)

2532. A supreme court, in general, has no original jurisdiction, except what may be given to it by the constitution. Its principal powers are to supervise the acts and proceedings of the inferior tribunals. This is done by writ of error and by appeal.

1. By writ of error. When, in course of the trial in an inferior court of law, it is alleged that the lower court has committed an error, the party aggrieved has a right to remove the cause, in civil actions, without the consent of the opposite party, into the supreme court; (b) for this purpose he sues out a writ of error from the supreme court, which writ commands the judges of the inferior court to send the record into the supreme court, there to be examined. The object of this writ is to correct an error of law committed in the course of the proceedings, which is not amendable or cured at common law, or by some statute of amendment, or jeofails.(c)

(a) Commonwealth v. McCloskey, 2 Rawle, 369; Buckinhoffen v. Martin, 3 Yeates, 479; Commonwealth v. White, 8 Pick, 435; Murfree v. Leiper, 1 Overt. 1; Overseers, &c. v. Smith, 2 S. & R. 363,

(6) Skipworth v. Hill, 2 Mass. 35; Drowne v. Stimpson, 2 Mass. 441. (c) Wall v. Wall, 2 Harr. & Gill, 79; Chase v. Davis, 7 Verm. 476; Colley v. Latimer, 5 S. & R. 211.

No. 2533.

Book 4, tit. 3, chap. 2, sec. 2.

No. 2533.

The supreme court being thus possessed of the cause, does not try it again upon the merits, and it is immaterial what may be the state of the facts. This proceeding is less a suit between the parties than between the judgment rendered in the court below and the law; for the supreme court do not try the cause between the parties, but judge the judgment. If the court below have obeyed all the requisitions of the law, their judgment, however wrong as to the facts, cannot be impeached, and it will be affirmed; and if they have violated the law, however correct their judgment may be as to the facts, it will be reversed. The reason of this is, that the supreme court, in cases of error, do not try the facts.

2. By appeal. An appeal in a civil suit, is a proceeding unknown to the common law. It is authorized by statute in a variety of cases, and is regulated entirely by the provisions of the particular act; it cannot be extended beyond the plain and obvious import of the statute granting it.(a)

In cases of appeal the whole case is examined and tried, as if it had not been tried before.(b) But it is an essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that it revises and corrects the proceedings below, and does not create a new cause. (c)

SECTION 2.-OF INFERIOR courts.

2533. All other tribunals than the supreme court are inferior courts. (d) These courts have, in general, original jurisdiction in cases both at law and in equity. Unlike a supreme or superior court, an inferior tribunal is a court of limited jurisdiction, and it must appear on the face of its proceedings that it has jurisdiction, or its proceedings will be void. (e)

(a) Street v. Francis, 3 Ham. 277; 14 Mass. 420; 7 Pick. 321. (b) Vide Dane's Ab. h. t.

(c) Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 175; 3 Wheat. 600.

(d) Const. U. S. art. 3, s. 1.

(e) Kemp v. Kennedy, 5 Cranch, 172; S. C.; Pet. C. C. 36; Turner v. Bank of America, 4 Dall. 11.

No. 2534.

Book 4, tit. 3, chap. 3, 4.

No. 2536.

CHAPTER III.-OF COURTS OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION.

SECTION 1.-of courts of CIVIL JURISDICTION. 2534. The courts of civil jurisdiction are those which are authorized by the common law, or by the constitution or statute, to decide upon all civil actions, and disputes between persons, in their private capacity; whether such matters relate to the persons of the parties, or to their personal or real property.

These courts may act with or without a jury. The inferior courts of common law cannot try any thing, unless specially invested with that power by statute, without the aid of a jury, the constitution of the United States having secured that mode of trial. "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars," says the constitution, (a) "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reëxamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." But courts of equity always act without a jury.

SECTION 2.—of courts of CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.

2535. A criminal court is one established for the repression of crimes and for their punishment. The constitution and laws have secured to the citizen a trial in these courts by a jury, which is the greatest bulwark which liberty has ever interposed between tyranny and its victim.

CHAPTER IV.-OF THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF

COURTS.

2536. Jurisdiction is a power constitutionally conferred upon a court, a single judge, or a magistrate, to take cognizance and decide causes, according to law,

(a) Amendm. art. 9.

No. 2537.

Book 4, tit. 3, chap. 5, sec. 1.

No. 2538.

and to carry their sentence into execution. The tract of land or district within which a court, judge, or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory, is called his territorial jurisdiction.

Those courts which extend over the whole of the territory, which is governed by the same laws, may be called central; as the supreme court of the United States is a central court, because its jurisdiction extends over every part of the Union. In the same way the supreme court of each state is a central court within that state, because its powers extend over every part of the state.

The jurisdiction of some courts extends only over a part of the territory which is ruled by the same laws, these may be called local; such are the circuit and district courts of the United States, because their jurisdiction extends only over particular parts of the country, called circuits or districts. So the courts of common pleas, parish courts, city courts, and other similar tribunals which have only a local authority, may be called local courts.

CHAPTER V.-OF THE DIVISION OF COURTS AS TO THEIR
OBJECTS.

2537. When considered as to the object of their jurisdiction, they are, 1, courts of common law; 2, courts of equity; 3, courts of admiralty; and, 4, courts martial.

SECTION 1.-OF COURTS OF COMMON LAW.

2538. Courts of common law are established to protect legal rights and to redress legal injuries. The remedies for the redress of wrongs and for the enforcement of rights, are distinguished into two classes; first, those which are administered in courts of common law; and, secondly, those which are administered

No. 2539.

Book 4, tit. 3, chap. 5, sec. 2.

No. 2539.

in courts of equity. Rights which are recognized and protected, and wrongs which are redressed by the former courts, are called legal rights and legal injuries. Rights which are to be obtained, and wrongs from which the party can be relieved only by courts of equity, are equitable rights and equitable wrongs. The former are said to be rights and wrongs at common law, and the remedies, therefore, are remedies at common law; the latter are said to be rights and wrongs in equity, and the remedies, therefore, are remedies in equity.

The courts of common law afford remedies by action, whenever the plaintiff has a legal right, whether the equitable right be in him or in another.

SECTION 2.—OF COURTS OF EQUITY. (a)

2539. Courts of equity are those which have jurisdiction in cases where the parties have only equitable rights. It is not easy to trace their history, and to determine how they originally obtained the jurisdiction they now exercise. Their authority and the extent of it have been subjects of much question, but time has firmly established them; and the limits of their jurisdiction seem to be in a great degree fixed and ascertained. In this country their authority is established by the constitution and statute law. (b)

(a) 1 Story on Eq. ch. 2; Mitf. Pl. Intr.; Cooper's Eq. Pl. (b) The following just remarks, showing the origin of the jurisdiction of courts of equity, are taken from a report made by a committee appointed by the Society for Promoting the Amendment of the Law, in England, “to inquire whether the principles of Law and Equity can be administered in the same court, and by the same form of procedure; and in making such inquiry, to have regard to the provisions and operation of the New York Code." The committee say, "The Common Law of England is the work of a rude age, more anxious to protect the rights of the citizen from being overborne by the power of the barons, or undermined by the corruption of the judges, than to ascertain those rights clearly, or to enforce them completely. Hence the Common Law has ever looked with jealousy on the transfer, and indeed on the existence of rights not accompanied by possession; it has sought, by means of trial by jury, to place the administration of the law in the hands of the people themselves, and it has fettered judicial

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »