Circuit Courts of the United States. less forbidden by law; and the 17th section of the judiciary law, vests, expressly, this power in the courts of the United States. Golden v. Prince, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 313. property demanded exceeds five hundred dol- | power of making its own rules of practice, unlars in value; and if upon a trial the demandant recovers less, he is not to be allowed his costs; and in the discretion of the court may be adjudged to pay costs. Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch, 229; 3 Cond. Rep. 97. 405. Where the record of a judgment in the 399. Under the clause of the constitution, de- circuit court has been sent to the supreme court, claring that the judicial power shall extend to and an appearance entered there by the defendcontroversies between citizens of the same state ant în error, and a decision by the supreme court claiming lands under grants of different states, reversing the judgment, and remanding the cause a case is included where one party claimed land for a new trial, the defendant in error cannot ob under a grant from the state of New Hampshire, ject that the judgment in this cause is in force, and the other under a grant from the state of and unreversed, upon the ground that no writ of Vermont; although at the time of the first grant error had been sued out. Evans v. Eaton, 3 Vermont was part of New Hampshire. Town | Wash. C. C. R. 443. of Pawlet v. Clarke, 9 Cranch, 292; 3 Cond. Rep. 408. 400. Under the judiciary act of 1798, ch. 20, sec. 11, giving jurisdiction to the circuit court, where an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the state where the suit is brought and a citizen of another state, if the suit be joint, each distinct interest should be represented by persons, all of whom are entitled to sue, or may be sued, in the federal courts. That is, where the interest is joint, each of the persons concerned in the interest must be competent to sue or be sued, in those courts. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch, 267; 1 Cond. Rep. 523. Corporation of New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91; 3 Cond. Rep. 499. 401. The residence of a party in another district of a state than that in which the suit is brought in a court of the United States, does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the court. The division of a state into two or more districts, cannot affect the jurisdiction of the court on account of citizenship. If a party is found in the district in which he is sued, the case is out of the prohibition of the judiciary act, which declares that "no civil suit shall be brought in the courts of the United States, against a defendant, by any original process, in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ." M'Micken v. Webb et al., 11 Peters' Rep. 25. 402. The rule was established by the supreme Court in the case of Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheat. 146, that the circuit court of the United States has jurisdiction of a suit brought by the endorsee of a promissory note, who was a citizen of one state, against the endorser, who was a citizen of a different state, whether a suit could be brought in that court by the endorsee against the maker, or not. Evans v. Gee, 11 Peters' Rep. 80. 403. A judgment at law, in the circuit court of the United States, of Kentucky, is not conclusive on the circuit court of the United States, sitting in equity, as the same would not be conclusive on the circuit court of Kentucky; as the principles and rules of a court of equity differ from those which prevail in a court of law. Bryant v. Hunter et al., 3 Wash. C. C. R. 48. 404. The laws of the several states, constitutionally passed since 1789, are binding on the circuit courts of the United States, held within he state in which the same prevail. Aliter, as › rules of practice. Every court possesses the 406. The petitioner was arrested by the mar shal 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 canse, as to a certain bale of goods condemned to the captors, and which had come into the possession of Peter Graham, the relator: Held, that the circuit and district courts of the United States cannot, either in suits at common law or equity, send their process into another district, except where specially authorized so to do, by some act of congress. Ex parte Peter Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 456. 407. A libel was filed to carry into execution a sentence of the circuit court of Rhode Island, against Graham, a resident citizen of Pennsyl vania, for the value of a box of merchandise, condemned by that court, and which was charged to have come into his hands after condemnation. Plea, that the defendant had not been served with process in the district of Rhode Island, and was not a party to the proceedings in that court. By the court:-The circuit court of Rhode Island had no jurisdiction against Graham in personam, as he was a citizen of Pennsylvania, and was not served with process in that state. The decree of that court is conclusive against the merchandise; and upon a proper application to this court, the court would not hesitate to give it effect against the appellee, in respect to the merchandise; if it should appear that he had, or has, possession of them or their proceeds. As to the thing, Graham and all others claiming it on the ground of property or possession, were parties to that suit, and were represented by it in that court, although they were not served with process, or had not heard of the proceedings. Wilson v. Graham, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 53. 408. The circuit court of the United States has not jurisdiction of a cause in which a state is a party; and if a state be a party, and the cause be removed from the state court to the circuit court, the latter court will remand it, even after it has been docketed. Den ex lem. of the state of New Jersey v. Babcock, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 344. 409. A bill in equity to enjoin a judgment, lies in the circuit court where the judgment is given, although the original plaintiff resides in, and is a citizen of, another state. Such a bill is not an original suit, within the sense of the 11th section Circuit Courts of the United States. of the judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20. Dunlap v. | being served with process out of the district in Stetson, 4 Mason's C. C. R. 349. which he resides, or of not being compelled by such service, to appear in any other district, is merely personal, unconnected with the jurisdiction of the court, and may be waived by an apHarrison et al. v. Rowan et al., 1 Peter's C. C. R. 489. 410. It is not necessary that a citizen, removing from a territory of the United States or a state, into another state, should acquire all the rights of a citizen of the state into which he re-pearance. moves, by the laws of such state. It is sufficient if he acquire a domicil there. Yet the declaration must aver that he is a citizen of the state; not sufficient that it should aver that he is a resident. Callet v. The Pacific Insurance Co., 1 Paine's C. C. R. 599. 411. If one make such a removal, with the avowed object of acquiring a right to sue in the circuit court, but with the intention of a permanent residence, and not to return, it is not a fraud upon the law. Ibid. 412. Where a corporation is sued in the circuit court, it is prima facie evidence to support the averment of citizenship, that it is incorporated by a law of the state in which the action is brought, and transacts its business within it. Ibid. 413. An action on a policy of insurance may be brought in the name of the principal, though the agent only is named in the policy, the policy not being under seal; and the circuit courts of the United States will entertain jurisdiction where the principal is a citizen of a different state from that of the defendant, although the agent is of the same state. Ruan v. Gardner, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 145. 414. A, a citizen of New York, being one of several tenants in common of lands lying in Pennsylvania, of which state the other tenants in common were citizens, took a conveyance in severalty from the trustees, also citizens of Pennsylvania, in whom the whole interest had been vested, and covenanted in the deed to institute suits for the recovery of the land so conveyed to him, and to reconvey them to the trustees, on their repaying him his expenses, &c. By the court: -This deed was not colourable to vest jurisdiction in the United States courts, but valid; and A might, upon this title, sue in the circuit court. Brown's Lessee v. Brown, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 429. 415. Where a writ, at the suit of a citizen of Kentucky, was issued from the circuit court in Pennsylvania against I., a citizen of New Orleans, and C., citizen of Pennsylvania, upon which the latter was taken, and non est returned as to the other defendant, the defendant who has been arrested cannot avail himself of the fact, that as, between the plaintiff and the codefendant, the court would not entertain jurisdiction of the cause, but the suit may go on against him who has been served with process, under the laws and practice of Pennsylvania. Craig v. Cummins, 2 Wash. C. C. R. 505. 416. The district court has alone original jurisdiction in admiralty cases. The circuit court has, in such cases, no original, but only appellate jurisdiction. Janson v. The Vrow Magdalena, Bee's D. C. R. 11. 417. If the subject matter of the suit be such as that the circuit court may entertain jurisdiction of it, the privilege which a party has, of not 418. The clause in the patent law authorizing suits in the circuit courts, stands on the principle that they are cases arising under a law of the United States. Osborn et al. v. Bank U. S., 9 Wheat. 738; 5 Cond. Rep. 741. 419. The statement of facts made by the cir cuit court in equity or admiralty cases, and removed with the record, is conclusive upon the supreme court under the act of congress. [This provision of the act of congress has been repealed. ED.] Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321; 1 Cond. Rep. 144. 420. The supreme court has a legal discretion under the 3d section of the act of congress of March 2d, 1793, ch. 167, to direct a special session of the circuit court, to be holden at any convenient place in the district, nearer to where the offences are said to have been committed, than the place appointed by law for the ordinary session; and they may direct such special sessions to be held in the county where the offence is alleged to have been committed, if such appointment is otherwise eligible. United States v Pennsylvania Insurgents, 3 Dall. 513. 421. The circuit court cannot rehear a cause, or admit a claim, or grant an appeal at a term subsequent to that at which the cause was finally decided. The Avery, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 386. 422. The circuit court has no supervising power over the district courts, other than is given by the laws of the United States, which is to compel a rendition of a judgment or decree, or to re-examine it on error or appeal. The circuit courts 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, 1 Paine's C. C. R. 453. 423. Where the district court refuses to proceed to judgment, a mandamus lies to compel it; but a mandamus will not lie to a district court to compel it to expunge amendments, improperly made in the record returned to the circuit court on a writ of error. Ibid. 424. It is necessary to set forth in the record the citizenship or alienage of the respective par ties, to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382; 1 Cond. Rep. 170. 425. A division of the judges of the circuit court on a motion for a new trial, is not such a division of opinion as is to be certified to the supreme court for its decision. United States v. Daniel, 6 Wheat. 542; 5 Cond. Rep. 170. 426. The district judge cannot sit in the circuit court in a case brought by writ of error from the district court; and such a case cannot be brought from the circuit to the supreme court upon a certificate of the division of opinion of the judges. United States v. Lancaster, 5 Wheat. 534; 4 Cond. Rep. 728. Circuit Courts of the United States. 427. In actions for torts, there can be no rule to determine the jurisdiction of the circuit court, limited to cases of a certain amount, but the sum laid in the declaration. Hulsecamp v. Teal, 2 Dall. 358. able to W. Pitt or bearer by the holder, a citizen of one state, against the citizen of another, the circuit court has jurisdiction, without showing that W. Pitt is a fictitious person, or a citizen of a state different from the defendant; the prohi428. The circuit courts have no original juris-bition contained in the 11th sec. of the act of diction in suits for penalties and forfeitures arising under the laws of the United States; but the district court has exclusive jurisdiction. Ketland v. The Cassius, 2 Dall. 365. 429. An information against a vessel, on the ground of illegal outfit, will not lie in the circuit court. Ibid. 430. A circuit court of the United States cannot enjoin proceedings in a state court. Diggs et al. v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179; 2 Cond. Rep. 75. 431. The circuit court of the United States have no power to set aside their decrees in equity, on motion, after the term at which they are rendered. Cameron v. M'Roberts, 3 Wheat. 591; 4 Cond. Rep. 344. 432. It is not necessary to aver on the record that the defendant was an inhabitant of the district where the suit is brought, or found therein at the time of suing the writ. The exemption from arrest in a district in which defendant was not an inhabitant, or in which he was not found at the time of suing process, is a privilege of the defendant, which he may waive by a voluntary appearance. Gracie et al. v. Palmer et al., 8 Wheat. 699; 5 Cond. Rep. 561. 433. The circuit courts of the United States have jurisdiction of a bill in equity filed by the Bank of the United States, for the purpose of protecting the bank in the exercise of its franchises, which are threatened with invasion and destruction under an unconstitutional state law: and as the state itself cannot be made a defendant, it may be maintained against the officers and agents of the state who are appointed to execute such laws. Osborn v. The Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738; 5 Cond. Rep. 741. 434. The circuit courts of the United States have jurisdiction of suits brought by the Bank of the United States against a bank incorporated by a statute of a state, and of which the state is itself a stockholder, together with private individuals who are citizens of the same state with some of the stockholders of the Bank of the United States. Bank of the United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat. 904; 5 Cond. Rep. 794. 435. The circuit courts of the United States have jurisdiction under the constitution, the acts of April 10th, 1810, ch. 2, sec. 29, and of March 3d, 1815, ch. 782, sec. 4, of suits brought in the name of the postmaster-general of the United States, on bonds given to the postmaster-general by a deputy postmaster, conditioned to pay all moneys that shall come to his hands for postage of whatever is by law chargeable with postage, to the postmaster-general of the United States for the time being, deducting only the commission and allowance made by law for his care, trouble and charges, in managing the said office. Postmaster-General et al. v. Early et al., 12 Wheat. 136; 6 Cond. Rep. 480. September 24th, 1789, ch. 20, not applying to such a case. Bullard v. Bell, 1 Mason, 243. 437. The circuit court has no jurisdiction in causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, except over the final decrees of the district court. If such final decree be unappealed from, no appeal lies upon any subsequent proceedings upon the summary judgment rendered on a bond for the appraised value, or upon an admiralty stipulation taken in the cause, to enforce the decree. The proceedings in such cases, and the awarding of execution are incidents exclusively belonging to the court in possession of the principal cause. The Hollen, 1 Mason's C. C. R. 431. 438. The circuit court has no jurisdiction of suits between citizens of different states, excepting where one of the parties is a citizen of the state where the suit is brought. Shute v. Davis, 1 Peter's C. C. R. 431. 439. It has no other jurisdiction than that which is given by some statute. Ibid. 440. Where a citizen of New Hampshire sues a citizen of Connecticut in the circuit court in New Hampshire, the jurisdiction of the court is not ousted per se by the clause in the eleventh section of the judiciary act of September 24, 1789, ch. 20, which provides that no civil suit shall be brought before said court "against an inhabitant of the United States, by any original process, in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ." Flanders v. Etna Ins. Co., 3 Mason's C. C. R. 158. 441. This clause confers a privilege upon the defendant of which he may avail himself at the proper time, or which he may waive at his pleasure; and after entering a general appearance to the action, it is too late to make the objection. lbid. 442. A corporation aggregate, composed of citizens of one state, may sue a citizen of another state in the circuit court of the United States. Bank of the United States v. Deveaux et al., 5 Cranch, 61; 2 Cond. Rep. 189. 443. Where the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States depends, not on the character of the parties, but upon the nature of the case, the circuit courts derive no jurisdiction from the judiciary act, except in the case of citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants from different states. Ibid. 444. When the jurisdiction of the circuit court depends on the character of the parties, and such party, either plaintiff or defendant, 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. Arredondo et al., 1 Paine's C. C. R. 410. 445. The circuit courts are not deprived of their jurisdiction, where it arises from the citi 436. In an action brought on a bank note, pay-zenship or alienage of parties, by the joiner of a Circuit Courts of the United States. mere nominal party, who does not possess the requisite character. Ibid. 446. To deprive an American citizen of the right of suing in the circuit court, on the ground of his not being a citizen of any particular state, there ought to be very strong evidence of his being a mere wanderer without a home. Rabaud et al. v. D'Wolf, 1 Paine's C. C. R. 580. 447. The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is limited, and the inferior courts can exercise it only in cases in which it is conferred by an act of congress. Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. C. C R. 232. force in the state courts, which were similar to the English practice, were adopted by the judges of the circuit courts. A subsequent change in the practice of the state courts will not authorize a departure from the rules so adopted. 1 Peters' C. C. R. 1. 454. The circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction in a case in which a citizen of the District of Columbia is plaintiffs. Westcott's Lessee v. The Inhabitants, &c., 1 Peters' C. C. R. 45. 455. Evidence of the value of lands in dispute by witnesses, on affidavit, would be sufficient to fix the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Lessee of Hartshorn v. Wright et al., 1 Peters' C. C. R. 64. 448. In a case removed by the defendant from the state court to the circuit court, on the ground that the defendant was an alien, the damages laid in the writ exceeded five hundred dollars, 456. If a cause be removed from a state court and bail to a much larger amount was given. by the defendant, and the plaintiff declares in This was held to be sufficient to give the circuit the circuit court for more than five hundred dolcourt jurisdiction. Munns v. Dupont, 2 Wash.lars, the plaintiff cannot, by a release of part of C. C. R. 463. 449. If the plaintiff has a right to claim the jurisdiction of the circuit court under the law, a deed which is not intended to give and which does not give jurisdiction to the court, cannot be said to be given in fraud of the law, merely because it changes the nature of the suit, which the plaintiff has a right to maintain in the courts of the United States. Lessee of Brown v. Arbunkle, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 484. 450. The judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 11, contains the following exceptions: "Nor shall any district or circuit court have cognizance of any suit, to recover the contents of any promissory note, or other chose in action, in favour of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents, if no assignment had been made, except in cases of bills of exchange. Held, that this does not apply, either directly or constructively, to a conveyance of lands from a citizen of one state to a citizen of another state. Briggs v. French, 2 Sumner's C. C. R. 252. 451. The lessor of the plaintiff, a resident in New York, as a member of the Population Company, was entitled to 165 out of 2500 shares of a large body of lands in Pennsylvania; the legal title to which was originally in three trustees, who, before the institution of this suit, conveyed the land, the object of this suit, to him, with other tracts, by lease for six years, subject to an annual rent, and to a covenant by the lessor, to bring suits to recover the land, and at the end of the term, to deliver it up to the trustees. Held, that the title of the lessor of the plaintiff was sufficient to give the circuit court jurisdiction of the case. Browne's Lessee v. Browne, 2 Wash. C. C. R. 429. 452. The lessor of the plaintiff had an equitable estate in the land, before the conveyance by the trustees, and the circuit court could have compelled them to convey the legal estate to him; in which case he could have maintained a suit in the circuit court. The conveyance of trustees having been voluntary, does not impair the jurisdiction. Ibid. 453. At an early period after the organization of the federal courts, the rules of practice in his debt, so as to reduce it below five hundred dollars, take away the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Wright v. Wells, 1 Peters, 220. 457. The circuit court has no jurisdiction where neither of the parties are citizens of the state in which the action is instituted. Shute v. Davis, 1 Peters, C. C. R. 431. 458. Where the plaintiff was a citizen of Kentucky, and one of the defendants was a citizen of Pennsylvania, and the other defendant a citizen of New Orleans, but no process had been served on the latter, the jurisdiction of the court was maintained. Ibid. 459. The eleventh section of the judiciary act of 24th September, 1789, relative to the service of process, is not a denial of jurisdiction to the circuit courts, but is the grant of a privilege to the defendant, not to be sued out of the state in which he resides, unless he be served with process in the state where the suit is brought. But the defendant may waive that privilege by a voluntary appearance. Harrison v. Rowan et al., 1 Peters, 489. 460. Where money has been paid on order of the district court, under a mistaken construction of an act of congress, before a final order of the circuit court, in which the suit for the same was pending, the circuit court granted a rule on the person to whom the money had been paid to return it. The Ariadne, 1 Peters' C. C. R. 455. 461. The laws of the several states, as to rights, furnish rules of decision for the federal courts, under certain qualifications; but as to remedies, they have no binding authority on these courts. Campbell et al. v. Claudius, i Peters' C. C. R. 484. 462. The courts of the United States have equity as well as legal jurisdiction. The prac tice of the courts of Pennsylvania is not allowed, which permits the jury to find a conditional verdict where the equity of the case may require it. Conn et al. v. Penn et al., 1 Peters C. C. R. 496. 463. The circuit courts of the United States have cognizance of all offences against the United States. What these offences are, depends upon the common law applied to the sovereignty and authorities confided to the United Circuit Courts of the United States. States. United States v. Coolidge et al., 1 Gallis. | who filed the bill of revivor in the circuit court. C. C. R. 488, 495. 464. The circuit courts have cognizance of all offences against the United States, and may punish them by fine and imprisonment when no punishment is specially provided by statute. Ibid. 465. No appeal lies from the district to the circuit court in any cause, except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. A writ of error is the proper process to correct errors of the district court in common law actions. United States v. Wonson, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 5. 466. Where a cause has once been tried by a jury in a district court, there cannot, even supposing an appeal to lay, be a new trial by a jury in a circuit court. Ibid. 467. On an appeal to the circuit court from the district court, the property follows the appeal into that court, and is no longer subject to the interlocutory orders of the district court. The Grotius, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 503. 468. The circuit court has cognizance, under the act of congress of 1790, ch. 9, sec. 8, of piracy on board of an American ship, although committed in an open roadstead adjacent to a foreign territory, and within half a mile of the shore. United States v. Ross, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 524. 469. Under the act of congress of 1809, ch. 94, the disability of the district judge to try causes, and which, on that account, have been certified to the circuit court, terminates by the death of the judge; and the circuit court must remand such cases to the district court, another judge having been appointed. Ex parte The United States, 1 Gallis. Ĉ. C. R. 338. 470. Appellate courts in admiralty cases have the whole circumstances before them, and may render such decree as the inferior tribunal should have done. Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54; 1 Cond. Rep. 21. 471. If the prize proceeds remain in the circuit court, application for distribution may be originally made there. If they have been paid over, and the cause is no longer pending in the circuit court, the district court is the proper jurisdiction for such an application. The St. Lawrence, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 20. 472. Semble: That in questions of commercial law, the courts of the United States are not included by the local construction proceeding from the state courts. Donnell v. The Columbia Ins. Co., 2 Sumner's C. C. R. 366. 473. The courts of the United States are bound to take judicial cognizance of the laws of the different states. Gordon v. Hobart, 2 Sumner, John H. Clarke, Adm'r of William W. Wetmore, v. Henry Mathewson and others, 12 Peters. 476. The circuit court of New York has jurisdiction in an indictment founded on the crimes act of 3d March, 1835, for feloniously stealing articles of merchandise belonging to the ship Bristol, which had been cast away on the coast of the state of New York, the goods having been so feloniously taken above high water mark, in the county of Queens, in the said state. The United States v. Coombs, 12 Peters. 477. In a libel for salvage, where there were a number of distinct owners of the property saved, a general claim was put in by the owners of part of the goods, and a general decree for two thousand seven hundred and twenty-eight dollars as salvage was made. No apportionment of the salvage was made; but it appeared by a schedule, that the highest salvage to be paid by any owner of the goods did not amount to one thousand dollars. The court held, that no appeal from the circuit court would lie. Straltou v. Jarvis et al., 8 Peters, 4. 478. A decree of a circuit court, perpetuating an injunction in a case in which some matters of account were left open for further examination, is not a final decree; and appeal will not lie in such a case. Brown v. Swann, 9 Peters, 1. 479. An appeal will not lie from the decree of the district court of the United States for the district of Louisiana, dissolving an injunction. Hiariarl v. Ballon, 9 Peters, 156. 480. The circuit court, notwithstanding the restrictive clause in the judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 11, has jurisdiction in a suit in equity brought by a judgment creditor against his debtor and others, (they being citizens of different states,) to set aside conveyances made in fraud of creditors, although the ground of the judg ment was a negotiable chose in action, on which, before judgment, a suit could not have been maintained in such court. Bean v. Smith, 2 Ma son's C. C. R. 252. 481. The circuit court of the United States has jurisdiction in a case between citizens of different states to sustain a petition for partition, according to the statutes of Massachusetts, for partition of lands among tenants in common. Ex parte Biddle, 2 Mason, 472. 482. To give jurisdiction to the circuit court, one of the parties must be a citizen of Pennsyl vania. If the plaintiff had been a citizen of Pennsylvania, the court would have had jurisdiction; but still Sullivan could not have been compelled to appear to the suit, unless he had been served with process in the Pennsylvania district, or had chosen to waive his privilege, and 474. The courts of the United States are not voluntarily to appear. But in a case where there concluded in a matter of general equity jurisdic-is a total defect of jurisdiction, no appearance or tion by a decision of the state court. Flagg v. Mann, 2 Sumner's C. C. R. 487. 404. service of process, here, could give it. Per Mr. Justice WASHINGTON, in the circuit court of Pennsylvania. Kitchen v. Sullivan et al., 4 Wash. C. C. R. 84. 475. The circuit court can entertain a bill of revivor where the controversy was originally between citizens of different states, and the com- 483. The plaintiffs were a corporation estabplainant having died while the suit was depend-lished by a law of the United States: the de ing, administration of his effects was granted to fendants were a corporation established by an a citizen of the same state with the defendant, act of the legislature of Pennsylvania. By the |