Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States.

124. The courts of the United States have not jurisdiction, unless it appears by the record that it belongs to them, as that the parties are citizens of different states. Wood v. Wagnon, 2 Cranch, 9; 1 Cond. Rep. 335.

125. The courts of the United States will entertain jurisdiction of a cause where all the parties are aliens, if none of them object to it. Mason et al. v. The Blaireau, 2 Cranch, 240; 1 Cond. Rep. 397.

charge the jury, that it was necessary to convince | tember 24, 1789, ch. 20. Olney v. Arnold, 3 the jury, by proofs in court, that David Carrick Dall. 308; 1 Cond. Rep. 136. Buchanan is the same person as the grantor named in the patent, David Buchanan; and that the statement by the grantor was no proof to establish the fact. The circuit court instructed the jury that they must be satisfied from the deed and other documents, and the circumstances of the case, that the grantor in the deed is the same person to whom the patent was issued; and they declared their opinion that such was the fact. By the court:-The principle is well established, that a court may give their opinion on the evidence to the jury, being careful to distinguish between matters of law and matters of opinion, in regard to the fact. When a matter of law is given by the court to the jury, it should be considered by the court as conclusive; but a mere matter of opinion as to the facts, will only have such an influence on the jury as they may think it entitled to. Games et al. v. The Lessee of Dunn, 14 Peters, 322.

126. If there be two or more joint plaintiffs, and two or more joint defendants, where the interest is joint, each of the plaintiffs must be capable of suing each of the defendants in the courts of the United States, in order to support their jurisdiction. Strawbridge et al. v. Curtiss et al., 3 Cranch, 267; 1 Cond. Rep. 523.

127. A corporation aggregate cannot be a citizen, and cannot litigate in the courts of the United States, unless in consequence of 117. In every instance in which a tribunal has the character of the individuals who compose decided upon a matter within its regular juris- the body politic, which character must appear diction, its decision must be presumed proper, by proper averments on the record. It is not and is binding until reversed by a superior tri-sufficient to describe such corporation as "a bunal; and cannot be affected, nor the rights of company legally incorporated by the legislature persons dependent upon it be impaired, by any of and established at in collateral proceeding. Cocke v. Halsey, 16 Pe- said district." The Hope Ins. Co. of Providence ters, 71. v. Boardman et al., 5 Cranch, 57; 2 Cond. Rep. 189.

118. On commercial questions, the courts of the United States are not bound by the decisions of the state courts. Williams v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 3 Sumner's C. C. R. 270. Robinson v. Com. Ins. Co., 3 Sumner's C. C. R. 221.

119. In the circuit court of the United States, if the sum for which judgment is to be entered is less than five hundred dollars, the plaintiff is not entitled to costs. Ibid.

120. An application was made to the supreme court of Maine, to allow the execution to be amended by inserting a direction to the sheriff of Aroostook county, on the ground that the clerk had accidentally omitted it, which application the court refused to grant; and it was held, that this court had no authority to review or overrule the decision by the state court, it being in respect of a matter solely of local law. Kent v. Roberts, 2 Story's C. C. R. 591.

121. The courts of the United States follow the decisions of the state tribunals in all questions dependent upon the local statute laws of the state. Springer v. Foster, 2 Story's C. C. R.

383.

2. Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States. 122. The amendment of the constitution by which the judicial power of the United States was declared not to extend to any suit commenced or prosecuted by a citizen or citizens of another state, or by foreign subjects against a state, prevented the exercise of jurisdiction in any case, past or future. Hollingsworth v. The State of Virginia, 3 Dall. 378; 1 Cond. Rep. 169. 123. The superior court of Rhode Island, and not the general assembly, is the highest court of law of that state, within the meaning of the wenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of Sep

128. A citizen of the District of Columbia cannot maintain an action against a citizen of Virginia in the federal courts; he is not a citizen of a state within the meaning of the constitution. Hepburn and Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445; 1 Cond. Rep. 444.

129. The court is bound to take notice of a question of jurisdiction whenever it may occur, and however it may be presented; and the court should not proceed to a decision or investigation of a cause, after it is satisfied it has not jurisdiction. Ketland v. The Cassius, 2 Dall. 268.

130. Questions of prize are exclusively of admiralty jurisdiction. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 19; 1 Cond. Rep. 13.

131. Where the parties to a suit are such as to give the federal courts jurisdiction, it is immaterial that they are administrators or execu tors, and that those whom they represent were citizens of the same state. Chappedelaine et al. v. Decheneaux, 4 Cranch, 306; 2 Cond. Rep. 116.

132. The courts of the United States have jurisdiction of a case between citizens of the saine ties for the use of an alien. Brown et al. v. state, where the plaintiffs are only nominal Strode, 5 Cranch, 303; 2 Cond. Rep. 265.

par

133. Where an equity cause involves a naked question of title, the suit is local; but where the question changes its character, where the defendant is liable to complainant, either in consequence of contract or as trustee, or as the holder of a legal title, acquired by any species of mala fides practised on the plaintiff, the principles of equity give the court jurisdiction wherever the person may be found; and the circumstance that a question of title may be involved in the inquiry, and even constitute the essential point on which

Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States.

the case depends, will not arrest that jurisdiction. Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; 2 Cond. Rep.

336.

134. If a state is really a party to a suit in an inferior court, a plea to the jurisdiction may be put in there; or perhaps, without such a plea, the supreme court would reverse the judgment on a writ of error. Fowler et al. v. Lindsey, 4 Dall. 411; 1 Cond. Rep. 189.

135. The courts of the United States, under the judiciary act of September, 1798, ch. 20, have, by the delegation of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, at least as full jurisdiction of all causes of prize as the admiralty in England. Brown v. United States, 8 Cranch, 110; 3 Cond. Rep. 56.

142. The courts of the United States will not entertain jurisdiction of a cause on the ground that one of the parties is an alien; unless he be stated to be such in express terms. Michaelson v. Dennison et al., 3 Day, 294.

143. Previous to the ratification of the articles of confederation, congress had authority to institute such a tribunal as the commissioners of appeals with appellate jurisdiction in cases of prize. After the ratification of the articles of confederation, it is clear the court of appeals had jurisdiction of appeals from the state admiralty courts. Penhallow v. Doane's Administrator, 3 Dall. 54; 1 Cond. Rep. 21.

although lands not within the jurisdiction of the court may be affected by the decree. Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; 2 Cond. Rep. 336.

144. In cases of fraud, trusts or contracts, the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is 136. The courts of the United States have ex-sustainable wherever the person may be found, clusive jurisdiction of all seizures made on land or water, for a breach of the laws of the United States, and any intervention of a state authority, which, by taking the thing seized out of the hands of the United States officer, might obstruct the exercise of his jurisdiction, is unlawful. Slocum v. Mayberry et al., 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1.

137. The federal court, having cognizance of the seizure, might enforce a re-delivery of the thing by attachment, or other summary proceeding against the parties who should divest such possession. Ibid.

138. The third article of the constitution of the United States enables the judicial department to receive jurisdiction to the full extent of the constitution, laws and treaties of the United States, when any question respecting them shall assume such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting only when the subject is submitted to it by a party who asserts his rights in the form prescribed by law, It then becomes a case. Osborne et al. v. The Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738; 5 Cond. Rep. 741.

139. The courts of the United States have jurisdiction of cases of maritime torts, and may proceed in personam as well as in rem. They may, in the exercise of their admiralty jurisdiction, issue the process of attachment to compel an appearance both in cases of tort and of contract. Manro et al. v. Almeidas, 10 Wheat. 473; 6 Cond. Rep. 190.

140. Jurisdiction is neither given nor ousted by the relative situation of the parties concerned in interest, but by the relative situation of the parties named on the record; consequently the eleventh amendment to the constitution, which restrains the jurisdiction of the federal courts over suits against states, is limited to those suits in which a state is a party on the record. Bank of the United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat. 904; 5 Cond. Rep. 794.

111. A party who means to except to the jurisdiction of the court in a case of seizure, must plead to the jurisdiction. If he files a claim and plea to the merits, on which the parties are at issue, it is a waiver of any exception to the jurisdiction; and a decree on those merits cannot afterwards be arrested, unless the defect of jurisdiction be apparent on the face of the record. The Abby, 1 Mason's C. C. R. 360.

145. The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States extends, by the constitution, to cases where a caveat had been entered according to the laws of Virginia, existing before the erection of the part of her territory into the state of Kentucky, in which the lands in controversy were situated, on which caveat and judgment had been entered: although by the laws of Virginia the judgment was declared to be final; and the compact between Virginia and Kentucky stipulated, that rights acquired under Virginia should be decided according to the laws existing at the time the compact was entered into. Ibid.

146. The courts of the United States have no common law jurisdiction in cases of libel in criminal cases. United States v. Hudson et al., 7 Cranch, 32; 2 Cond. Rep. 405.

147. A general assignee of the effects of an insolvent cannot sue in the federal courts, if his assignor could not have sued in those courts. Sere et al. v. Pitot et al., 6 Cranch, 332; 2 Cond. Rep. 389.

148. A citizen of a territory cannot sue a citizen of a state in the courts of the United States: nor can those courts take jurisdiction in consequence of other parties being joined who are capable of suing. All the parties on each side must be subject to the jurisdiction. New Orleans Winter et al., 1 Wheat. 91; 3 Cond. Rep. 499. 149. A court of chancery, having obtained jurisdiction of the principal question, will proceed to make such decree as the justice and equity of the case may require. Hepburn et al. v. Dunlop et al., 1 Wheat. 197; 5 Cond. Rep. 529.

V.

150. During the war between the United States and Great Britain, a French privateer, duly commissioned, was captured by a British cruiser, afterwards recaptured by an American privateer, again captured by the British, recaptured by another American privateer, and brought into an American port. Restitution on payment of salvage was claimed by the French consul. A claim was also interposed by citizens of the United States, who alleged their property had been unlawfully taken by the French vessel, before her first capture, and praying an indemnification from the proceeds. Restitution, as prayed, was decreed. Held, that the courts of this

Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States.

country have no jurisdiction to redress any sup- | Green et al. v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1; 5 Cond. Rep. posed torts committed on the high seas upon the 369.

property of its citizens, by a cruiser regularly 158. The courts of the United States have commissioned by a foreign friendly power, ex-jurisdiction under the act of April 30th, 1790, ch. cept where such cruiser has been fitted out in 36, of murder or robbery committed on the high violation of our neutrality. L'Invincible, 1 Wheat. seas, although not committed on board a vessel 238; 3 Cond. Rep. 558. belonging to citizens of the United States, as if 151. The third article of the constitution of she had no national character, but was held by the United States, which declares that "the judi-pirates, or persons not lawfully sailing under the cial power shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," vests in the United States exclusive jurisdiction of all such cases: and that a murder committed in the waters of a state where the tide ebbs and flows, is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336; 4 Cond. Rep.

275.

152. Congress have not, in the 8th section of the act of April 30th, 1790, ch. 36, for the punishment of certain offences against the United States, exercised the power, if any such is given by the constitution of the United States, of conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the United States, of a murder committed in the waters of a state where the tide ebbs and flows. Ibid.

153. Congress having provided, in the 8th section of the act of April 30th, 1790, for the punishment of murder, &c., committed "upon the high seas, or in any river, haven, basin, or bay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state," it is not the offence committed, but the bay, &c., in which it is committed, that must be out of the jurisdiction of the state. Ibid.

154. The courts of the United States have jurisdiction of a murder committed on the high seas, from a vessel belonging to the United States, by a foreigner being on board of such vessel, upon another foreigner being on board of a foreign vessel. United States v. Furlong, 5 Wheat. 184; 4 Cond. Rep. 623.

155. The courts of the United States have not jurisdiction of a murder committed by one foreigner on another foreigner on board a foreign vessel on the high seas. But they have jurisdiction of a piracy thus committed. Ibid.

156. Whatever may be the exemption of a public ship herself, and of her armament and munitions of war, from being amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States the prize property which she brings into our ports is liable to such jurisdiction for the purpose of examination and inquiry, and if a proper case is made out, for restitution to those whose possession has been divested by a violation of our neutrality; and if the goods are landed from the public ship in our ports, by the express permission of our government, it does not vary the case, since it involves no pledge, that if illegally captured they shall be exempted from the ordinary operation of the laws of the United States. Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283; 5 Cond. Rep. 284.

157. The federal courts have jurisdiction of cases involving questions arising under the compact between Virginia and Kentucky, notwithstanding that compact provided for the creation of a tribunal to determine upon its meaning.

flag of any foreign nation. The United States v. Holmes et al., 5 Wheat. 412; 4 Cond. Rep. 708.

159. The courts of the United States will not suffer their jurisdiction to be ousted by the mere joinder or non-joinder of formal parties; but will rather proceed without them, and decide upon the merits of the case between the parties who have the real interest before it, when it can be done without prejudice to the rights of others. Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421; 5 Cond. Rep. 473.

160. The courts of the United States have jurisdiction of suits by or against executors or administrators, if they are citizens of different states, although their testators or intestates were not thus entitled to sue, or liable to be sued, in these courts. The 11th section of the judiciary act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, is not applicable to such cases. Childress et al. v. Emory et al., Ex'rs, &c., 8 Wheat. 642; 5 Cond. Rep. 547.

161. A court of the United States has no jurisdiction to enjoin proceedings in a state court. Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179; 2 Cond. Rep.

75.

162. The legislature of a state cannot annul the judgments or determine the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. The United States v. Judge Peters, 5 Cranch, 115; 2 Cond. Rep. 202.

163. If the record shows an inferior court had not jurisdiction of a case, the supreme court will not award a venire facias de novo. Bingham, Plaintiff in Error, v. Cabot et al., 3 Dall. 19; 1 Cond. Rep. 13.

164. Questions of prize are exclusively of admiralty jurisdiction. Ibid.

165. Where muskets were carried by the passengers on board of a French armed vessel from New York to a port in the West Indies, and powder was taken from on board a French frigate in the harbour of New York, and carried by this same vessel to Port de Paix; a proceeding against the vessel, as forfeited under the act of congress passed 22d May, 1798, prohibiting for one year the exportation of arms and ammunition, is a cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. It is a process of the nature of a libel in rem, and does not in any degree 'ouch the person of the offender; and no jury was required for the trial of the same. The United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; 1 Cond. Rep. 132.

166. If a state is really a party to a suit in an inferior court, a plea to the jurisdiction may be put in there; or, perhaps without such a plea, the supreme court would revise the judgment on a writ of error. Fowler et al. v. Lindsey et al., 3 Dall. 411; 1 Cond. Rep. 189.

167. The supreme court understands the ex

Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States.

500.

pressions in the act of congress, giving jurisdic- | culiar jurisdiction over testamentary matters. tion to the courts of the United States, "where Armstrong v. Lear, 12 Wheat. 169; 6 Cond. Rep. an alien is a party, or the suit is between the citizen of the state where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state," to mean, that each distinct interest should be represented by persons, all of whom have a right to sue, or may be sued, in the federal courts; that is, when the interest is joint, each of the persons concerned in that interest must be competent to sue, or be liable to be sued, in those courts. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch, 267; 1 Cond. Rep. 523.

168. The supreme court has no jurisdiction in a writ of error to a state court, under the 25th section of the judiciary act of 1789, if the decision of the state court be in favour of the privilege claimed under the act of congress. Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 3 Cranch, 268; 1 Cond. Rep.

524.

175. If it does not appear by the record that the character of the original parties will support the jurisdiction, it cannot be sustained. Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 46; 2 Cond. Rep. 19. 176. The courts of the United States have no jurisdiction when both parties are aliens. Ibid.

177. It may be laid as a rule which admits of no exceptions, that in all cases where jurisdiction depends on the party, it is the party named on the record. The Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Peters, 121.

178. The libel and claim exhibited a demand for money actually in the treasury of the state of Georgia, mixed up with the general funds of the state, and for slaves in the possession of the government; the possession of both of which was acquired by means which it was lawful in the state to exercise. Held, That the courts of the United States had no jurisdiction; the same being taken away by the eleventh article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States. Ibid. 123.

167. Neither the constitution nor the act of congress regards the subject of the suit, but the parties to it. A description of the parties is therefore indispensable to the exercise of jurisdiction; which is by the law limited to suits between citizens and foreigners, and between citizens of different states. Mossman, surviving 179. In a case where the chief magistrate of Ex'r, v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; 1 Cond. Rep. 210. a state is sued, not by his name, but by his style Course v. Stead, 4 Dall. 22; 1 Cond. Rep. 217. of office, and the claim made upon him is en170. The verdict or judgment does not ascer-tirely in his official character, the state itself tain the value of the matter in dispute between may be considered a party in the record. Ibid. the parties. To determine this, recurrence must 124. be had to the original controversy-to the matter in dispute when the action was instituted. The descriptive words of the statute regulating the jurisdiction of the supreme court, in cases of writs of error and appeals, point emphatically to this criterion; and, in common understanding, the thing demanded, the penalty of a bond, and not the thing found, constitutes the matter in dispute between the parties. The nature of the case must guide the judgment of the court; and whenever the law makes a rule, the rule must be obeyed. Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401; 1 Cond. Rep. 185.

171. Where the value of the matter in dispute did not appear upon the record, the court allowed affidavits to prove the same to be taken on notice to the opposite party; the writ of error not to be a supersedeas. Williamson, Plaintiff in Error, v. Kincaid, 4 Dall. 20; 1 Cond. Rep. 215. Course et al. v. Stead et ux., 4 Dall. 22; 1 Cond. Rep. 217.

172. The court will permit viva voce testimony to be given of the value of the matter in dispute. The United States v. The Brig Union, 4 Cranch, 216; 2 Cond. Rep. 91.

173. The courts of the United States are courts of limited, but not of inferior jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction be not alleged in the proceedings, their judgments and decrees may be reversed for that cause, on a writ of error and appeal; but, until reversed, they are conclusive evidence between parties and privies. M'Cormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 192; 6 Cond. Rep.

71.

174. Jurisdiction of courts of equity over legacies cannot be exercised until the will has received probate in the proper court, having pe

180. The complainants are stated in the bill to be citizens of the state of South Carolina. The defendant, the Bank of Georgia, is a body corporate, existing under an act of the legislature, but the citizenship of the individual corporators is not stated. The averment in the original bill is, that William B. Bullock and Samuel Hale are citizens of Georgia, and residents therein; William B. Bullock is afterwards designated in the bill, as "President of the Mother Bank, and Samuel Hale, as the President of the Branch Bank at Augusta, in the State of Georgia." The courts of the United States have no jurisdiction of the case. The record does not show that the defendants were citizens of Georgia, nor are there any distinct allegations that the stockholders of the bank were citizens of that state. Breithaupt et al. v. The Bank of Georgia et al., 1 Peters, 238.

[ocr errors]

181. The constitution and laws of the United States give jurisdiction to the district courts, over all cases in admiralty; but jurisdiction over the case does not constitute the case itself. The American Insurance Company v. Three Hundred and Fifty-six Bales of Cotton, 1 Peters, 545.

182. The constitution declares that "the judi cial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under it-the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority;-to all cases affecting ambassadors, or other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." The constitution certainly contemplates these as three distinct classes of cases; and if they are distinct, the grant of jurisdiction over one of them, does not confer jurisdiction over either of the other two. The discrimina

Supreme Court. General Principles.

tion made between them is conclusive against | concurrent jurisdiction in cases of fraud. Lessee their identity. Ibid.

183. It cannot be alleged, that a citizen of one state having title to lands in another state, is disabled from suing for those lands in the courts of the United States, by the fact that he derives his title from a citizen of the state in which the lands lie. M'Donald v. Smalley et al., 1 Peters,

623.

184. In a contract between a mortgagor and mortgagee, being citizens of different states, it cannot be doubted that an ejectment, or bill to foreclose, may be brought in a court of the United States, by the mortgagee residing in a different state. Ibid. 624.

of Rhoades et al. v. Selin, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 715. 192. The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States depends exclusively on the constitution and laws of the United States. Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brockenb. C. C. R. 203.

193. When the jurisdiction of the several courts has once attached, no subsequent change in the situation or relations of the parties will oust that jurisdiction. The strongest considerations of utility and convenience require, that the jurisdiction being once vested, the action of the court should not be limited, but that it should proceed to make a final disposition of the subject. The United States v. Myers et al., 2 Brockenb. C. C. R. 516.

185. When the proceedings of a court of competent jurisdiction are brought before another 194. The local laws of the states of the United court collaterally, they are by no means subject States, can never confer jurisdiction on the courts to all the exceptions which might be taken to of the United States. They can only furnish them on a direct appeal. The general and well rules to ascertain the rights of the parties, and settled rule of law in such cases is, that when thus assist in the administration of the proper the proceedings are collaterally drawn in ques-remedies, where the jurisdiction is vested by the tion, and it appears on the face of them that the laws of the United States. The Steamboat Orsubject-matter was within the jurisdiction of the leans v. Phabus, 11 Peters, 175. court, they are voidable only. The errors and irregularities of any suit are to be corrected by some direct proceeding, either before the same court to set them aside, or in an appellate court. If there is a total want of jurisdiction, the proceedings are void, and a mere nullity, and confer no right and afford no justification, and may be rejected when collaterally drawn in question. Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Peters, 163.

186. When the jurisdiction of the court on the subject, under whose authority lands have been sold, appears on the face of the proceedings, its errors or mistakes, if any were committed, cannot be corrected or examined when brought up collaterally. Ibid. 169.

187. When there is no change of the parties to a suit during its progress, a jurisdiction depending on the condition of the parties is governed by that condition as it was at the commencement of the suit. Conolly et al. v. Taylor, 2 Peters, 565.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 1. General principles..

.........

. Page 468 2. Original jurisdiction of the supreme court........ 470 3. Appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court....... 472 1. General Principles.

195. In an action on a penal bond, the judgment is for the penalty, and if such judgment be of sufficient amount, to give to the supreme court jurisdiction over the suit, it is immateria, how much is found to be actually due by verdict. Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401; 1 Cond Rep. 185.

196. A case which is within the jurisdiction of the supreme court, on account of the interest a state has in the controversy, must be a case in which a state is nominally or substantially a party; it is not sufficient that a state may be consequentially affected. Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 411; 1 Cond. Rep. 189.

197. In an action for dower, the value of the property not appearing, the supreme court permitted the value to be ascertained by affidavit, in order to sustain the jurisdiction of the court. Williamson v. Kincaid, 4 Dall. 20.

188. If an alien should sue a citizen, and should omit to state the character of the parties in the bill, though the court could not exercise Jurisdiction while the defect in the bill remained, yet it might, as is every day's practice, be corrected at any time before the hearing, and the 198. An act of congress cannot invest the sucourt would not hesitate to decree in the cause.preme court with an authority not warranted by Ibid. 565. the constitution. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch,

189. The courts of the United States, as courts 137; 1 Cond. Rep. 267. of equity, possess jurisdiction to maintain suits 199. It is incumbent on the plaintiff in error in favour of legatees and distributees for their in the supreme court, to show that the court has portion of the estate of the deceased; notwith-jurisdiction of the cause. United States v. The Standing there may be, by the local jurispru-Union et al., 4 Cranch, 216; 2 Cond. Rep. 91. dence, a remedy at law on the administration 200. The supreme court will permit viva voce bond in favour of the party. This class of cases testimony to be given of the value of the matter is of concurrent, and not exclusive jurisdiction. in dispute. Ibid. Pratt v. Northam, 5 Mason's C. C. R. 95.

190. A court of equity has jurisdiction in a case where relief is sought against a meditated fraud, which throws a cloud over the title of the party. Briggs v. French, 1 Sumner's C. C. R.

504.

191. Courts of common law and equity have

201. The supreme court has authority to issue a habeus corpus where a person is imprisoned under the warrant or order of any other court of the United States. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; Cond. Rep. 225.

202. In an action of trover, if the judgment below be in favour of the defendant, the value

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »