Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

civil nature, at law or in equity, of which the Circuit Courts of the United States are given jurisdiction by law, which are brought in any State court, may be removed into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district by the defendant or defendants therein, being non-residents of that State.18 When in any suit brought in a State court, of a nature such that the Circuit Court might have jurisdiction over it, there is a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove said suit into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district." Where a suit is brought in any State court in which there is a controversy between a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State, any defendant, being such citizen of another State, may remove such suit into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district, at any time before the trial thereof, when it shall be made to appear to said Circuit Court that from prejudice or local influence he will not be able to obtain justice in such

U. S., 102; Postal Telegraph Cable Co. vs. State of Alabama, 155 U. S., 482; Claflin vs. McDermott, 12 Fed. Rep., 375. 18 Clause 2 of Section 2 of Act of March 3, 1887, 24 U. S. Stats., 552, corrected August 13, 1888; 25 U. S. Stats., 443, amendatory to Clause 2 of Section 2 of the Act of March 3, 1875. See Western Union Tel. Co. vs. Brown, 32 Fed. Rep., 337; State vs. Tutty, 41 Fed. Rep., 753; State of Indiana vs. Allegheny Oil Co., 85 Fed. Rep., 870; Maloney vs. American Tobacco Co. 72 Fed. Rep., 801; Railway Co. vs. Whitton, 13 Wallace, 270; Boom Co. vs.

State court, or in any

Patterson, 98 U. S., 403; Gaines vs. Fuentes, 92 U. S., 10; Shumway vs. Chicago & Iowa R. R. Co., 4 Fed. Rep., 481; Bevian vs. Chetwood, 9 Fed. Rep., 678; Removal cases, 100 U. S., 457; Barney vs. Lathan, 103 U. S., 205; Sewing Machine Co.'s Case, 18 Wallace, 553.

19 25 U. S. Stats., 433. See Western Union Telegraph Co. vs. Brown, 32 Fed. Rep., 337; Torrence vs. Shedd, 144 U. S., 527; Wilson vs. Oswego Townshil, 151 U. S., 56; City of Bellaire vs. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co., 156 U. S., 117.

other State court to which the said defendant may, under the laws of the State, have the right to remove said cause, on account of such prejudice or local influence, provided, that if it further appear that said suit can be fully and justly determined as to the other defendants in the State court, without being affected by such prejudice or local influence, and that no party to the suit will be prejudiced by a separation of the parties, said Circuit Court may direct the suit to be remanded, so far as relates to such other defendants, to the State court, to be proceeded with therein.20

Suits may also be removed from State courts to the circuit courts of the United States where the parties to the suit claim land, to the value of at least $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, under grants from different states; either plaintiff or defendant may remove a suit of this description, and the party removing cannot give evidence on the trial in the Circuit Court of any other title to the land than the one set up by him in his petition for removal." Either a civil suit or a criminal prosecution commenced in any State court for any cause whatever against any person who is denied or cannot enforce, in the judicial tribunals of the State or in the part of the State where such suit or prosecution is pending, any right secured to him by any law providing for the equal rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction

20 25 U. S. Stats., 433. The pre

judice act of 1867 was repealed
by implication by the act of
1887-8. See as to such repeal,
Fisk vs. Henaire, 142 U. S.,
459; Hanrick vs. Hanrick, 153
U. S., 192. See as to prejudice
and local influence, Neale vs.
Foster, 31 Fed. Rep., 55;
Amer. Bible Soc. vs. Grove, 101
U. S., 610; Amer. Bible Soc.
vs. Price, 110 U. S., 61; Jeffer-

son vs. Driver, 117 U. S., 272; Cambria Iron Co. vs. Ashburn, 118 U. S., 54.

"Act of March 3, 1875, 3; as

amended by Act of August 13, 1888, 25 U. S. Stats., 433. See Peyton vs. Bliss, 1 Wall., 170; Fed. Cas. No. 11,055; Town of Pawlet vs. Clark, 9 Cranch, 292; Thompson vs. Kendricks, 5 Haybe, 115.

of the United States, or against any officer, civil or military, or any other person, for any arrest or imprisonment or other trespasses or wrongs, made or committed by virtue of or under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights as aforesaid, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law, may be removed for trial to the next term of the Circuit Court to be held in the district where the State court is situated.22 All suits brought in any State court against any revenue officer of the United States or any officer acting under registration laws may be removed to the Circuit Court.23

SECTION 10. APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT

COURTS.

The appellate jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Courts was taken away at the time of the creation of the Circuit Courts of Appeal."

"Rev. Stats. 641 and 642. See

Strauder vs. West Virginia, 100 U. S., 303; Virginia vs. Rives, 100 U. S., 313; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S., 339; Virginia vs. Paul, 148 U. S., 107; Gibson vs. Mississippi, 162 U. S., 565. 23 Rev. Stats. 643 and 644.

See

State vs. Port, 3 Fed. Rep., 119; State vs. Emerson, 8 Fed. Rep., 411; Ins. Co. vs. Ritchie, 5 Wallace, 541; Philadelphia vs. Collector, 5 Wallace, 720. 26 U. S. Stats., 829; Act of March 3, 1891, Sec. 4.

CHAPTER IV.

THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL AND THE
SUPREME COURT.

SECTION 11. APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SU-
PREME COURT AND OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.

The Circuit Courts of Appeal have appellate jurisdiction to review, by appeal or writ of error, final decisions of the district or circuit courts in all cases where direct appeal to Supreme Court is not granted, unless otherwise provided by law; and the judgments or decrees of the Circuit Courts of Appeal are final in all cases in which the jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the opposite parties to the suit or controversy, being aliens and citizens of the United States or citizens of different states; also in all cases arising under the patent laws, under the revenue laws, and under the criminal laws, except capital cases and in admiralty cases, excepting that in every such subject within its appellate jurisdiction the Circuit Court of Appeals at any time may certify to the Supreme Court of the United States any questions or propositions of law concerning which it desires the instruction of that court for its proper decision. And thereupon the Supreme Court may either give its instruction on the questions and propositions certified to it, which shall be binding upon the Circuit Court of Appeals in such case, or it may require that the whole record and cause may be sent up to it for its consideration, and thereupon shall decide the whole matter in controversy in

the manner as if it had been brought there for review by writ of error or appeal. In any case made final in the Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court may require, by certiorari or otherwise, any such case to be certified to the Supreme Court for its review and determination with the same power and authority in the case is if it had been carried by appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court. Appeals or writs of error may be taken from the district or circuit courts to the proper Circuit Court of Appeals in cases of conviction of an infamous crime not capital. The Circuit Courts of Appeal have the same appellate jurisdiction by writ of error or appeal over the judgments and decrees of the courts of the territories as they have over the judgments and decrees of the district and circuit courts. This provision also applies to the appellate courts of the Indian Territory, which is assigned to the eighth judicial circuit.5 The Circuit Courts of Appeal also have appellate jurisdiction in various bankruptcy

120 U. S. Stats., 828, Sec. 6, cl. 1.

See Dower vs. Richards, 151 U.
S., 658; United States vs.
Tinsley, 25 U. S. App., 266; 73
Fed. Rep., 369; Robinson vs.
Belt, 12 U. S. App., 431; 56
Fed. Rep., 328; Ries vs. Hen-
derson, 42 U. S. App., 760; 78
Fed. Rep., 515; Isaacs vs.
United States, 159 U. S., 487;
Reagan vs. United States, 157
U. S., 301; Blitz vs United
States, 153 U. S., 308; United
States vs. Fowkes, 3 U. S. App.,
247; 53 Fed. Rep., 13; United
States vs. Coudert, 38 U. S.
App., 515; 73 Fed. Rep., 505;
Press Pub. Co. vs. Monroe, 164
U. S., 105; Rouse vs. Letcher,
156 U. S., 47; Hubbard vs.
Soby, 146 U. S., 56; United
States vs. American Bell Tel.
Co., 159 U. S., 548; Hunt vs.
United States, 166 U. S., 424;
Columbus Watch Co. vs. Rob-
bins, 148 U. S., 266.

26 U. S. Stats., 828, Sec. 6, cl. 2.
See Forsyth vs. Hammond, 166
U. S., 506; United States vs.
Three Friends, 166 U. S., 1;
American Const. Co. vs. Jack-
sonville, etc., Ry. Co., 148 U.
S., 372; Panama Ry. Co. vs.
Napier Shipping Co., 166 U. S.,

280.

29 U. S. Stats., 492. See Stoke

vs. United States, 23 U. S. App., 289; 60 Fed. Rep., 597. 26 U. S. Stats., 830, Sec. 15. See Aztec Mining Co. vs. Ripley, 10 U. S. App., 383; 53 Fed. Rep., 7; Alexander vs. United States, 15 U. S. App., 158; 57 Fed. Rep., 828.

28 U. S. Stats., 698. Prior to 1895 appeals could be taken from all U. S. Courts in Indian Territory directly to circuit courts of appeal. This territory is now merged in the State of Oklahoma.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »