« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
and clerks in relation to the designation, summoning and returning such jurors shall be performed by the marshal of the United States and the clerk of the court of the United States in the district where such court shall sit : And the petit jurors to serve in such court shall be taken from the parish in which such court holds its sessions, but the grand jurors may come from any part of the district, and may be summoned and empannelled by the marshal in the manner now prescribed: And the marshal, for the purpose of designating such petit jurors, shall take the names of all persons liable to serve as jurors from the list made by the sheriff, for the purpose of drawing jurors for the district court of the state; and such number of jurors shall be drawn for each term as the court may by its rules direct. But nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent any judge of any of such courts of the United States, from directing a jury to be summoned from any other parish within the district, whenever it may be necessary to secure an impartial trial; but in all such cases, the names of the jury shall be also designated by lot, in the manner directed by the laws of the state for designating jurors to serve in the district courts. Special juries may be directed for the trial of any particular civil cause, by the consent of parties, but not otherwise.(1)
The mode of proceeding in drawing and empanneling juries in the courts of the United States for the Louisiana districts, shall be the same as is now provided by law in the district courts of the state of Louisiana; and the judge of the United States' courts in said district is authorized, by rule, to adopt any amendment that may hereafter be made to the laws of the said state, prescribing the qualification of jurors, and providing for drawing and empanneling juries.(2)
All the duties prescribed by the laws of the state to be performed by the sheriff, in relation to the drawing and summoning of jurors, shall be performed by the marshals, and those so prescribed for the parish judge, or the district judge of the state, shall be performed by the district judge of the United States. And the duties so prescribed by the said state laws, imposed on any other state officer, shall be performed by such householders as shall be designated by the said judge of the district court of the United States.(3)
563. The district court for the Missouri district, consisting of the state of Missouri, is holden at the seat of government of the state, on the first Monday in March and September annually. The compensation of the judge is twelve hundred dollars per annum.(4) (See article 520.)
There shall be allowed to the attorney of the United States, for the district of Missouri, a fee of six dollars in each case now pending, or hereafter to be by him prosecuted on behalf of the United States, to be paid by the unsuccessful party, in addition to the salary and compensation allowed by law: But such fee shall not be taxed on any suit now commenced, or to be commenced, or any petition filed, or to be filed, in relation to the confirmation of land claims in Missouri, under the provisions of the act of the twentysixth of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four.(5)
564. The district court for the Illinois district, composed of the state of Illinois, is holden at the seat of government of the state on the fourth Monday in May and December, annually. The salary of the judge is one thousand dollars per annum.(6) (See article 520.)
565. The district court for the Indiana district, consisting of the state of
(1) Act 26th May, 1824, sec. 2.
(2) Act 20th May, 1830, sec. 1.
(3) Ibid. sec. 2.
(4) Act 16th March, 1822. Act April 29th, 1824.-Act 26th May, 1824.
(5) Act May 20th, 1826.
(6) Act 3d March, 1819. Act 29th April, 1824. Act 27th January, 1831. Act 9th July, 1832.
Indiana, is holden at the seat of government of the state on the last Mondays of May and November, annually. The salary of the judge is one thousand dollars per annum.(1) (See article 520.)
566. The district court for the district of Michigan, consisting of that state, is holden at the seat of government, annually, on the first Mondays in May and October. The judge receives a salary of fifteen hundred dollars per annum.(2) (See article 520.)
567. The district court for the district of Arkansas, composed of that state, is holden at the seat of government, on the first Mondays of April and November, annually. The judge receives a compensation of two thousand dollars per annum.(3) (See article 520.)
The district judges, respectively, may hold special courts, at their discretion, at the same place in each district as the stated courts, or in districts that have two, at either of them, or, at such places as the nature of the business may require.(4)*
568. A district court, in case of the inability of the judge to attend at the commencement of a session, may, by virtue of a written order from the judge, directed to the marshal of the district, be adjourned by such marshal to such day antecedent to the next stated session of the court, as in the said order shall be appointed.(5)
In case of the inability of such judge to attend on the day appointed for holding a special or an adjourned court, such court may, by such order, be adjourned by the marshal to the next stated term, or to such day prior thereto as in such order shall be appointed.(6)
569. The records of the district court shall be kept at the place in which the court is holden, where it is holden at one place only; and where at two, at that place in each district which the judge shall designate.(7)*
570. In case of the death of the district judge, and the vacancy not being supplied, all process, pleadings and proceedings, of what nature soever, pending before the district court, shall be continued of course until the next stated session after the appointment and acceptance of the office by his successors.(8)
ART. 571. The district courts have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,(9) including seizures under laws of impost, navigation, or trade of the United States, made on
(1) Act March 3d, 1817. Act 19th May, 1832.
(2) Act 1st July, 1836.
(3) Act 15th June, 1836.
(4) Act Sept. 24th, 1789, sec. 3.
(5) Ibid. sec. 6.
(6) Act 26th March, 1804.
(7) Act 24th Sept. 1789, sec. 3.
(9) Ibid. sec. 9. Penhallow v. Duane, 3 Dall. 54. Glass v. schr. Betsey, 3 Dall.
6. Brown v. U. S. 8 Cr. 137.
These general provisions are subject to such special provisions on their subject matter, as have been enacted for particular districts.
waters navigable from the sea, by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas :(1) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it.*
(1) Act Sept. 24th, 1789. Savage v. 2 Cr. 443. 7 Cr. 112. 2 Wheat. 1. 3 steamboat Buffalo, Sergt. Con. Law, 202. Wheat. 246.
* In cases of seizure made on land, under the revenue laws, the district court proceeds as a court of common law, according to the course of the exchequer, on informations in rem, and the trial of issues of fact is by jury. But in cases of seizure on waters navigable from the sea, by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, it proceeds as an instance court of admiralty, by libel, and the trial is to be by the court. -The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391, 394.
A libel, charging the seizure to have been made on water, when it was made on land, will not support a verdict and judgment, and sentence thereon. The two jurisdictions, and the proceedings under them, are to be kept entirely distinct.— The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391, 394.
The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of these courts, vested by the constitution, being exclusive in its nature, state tribunals cannot exercise concurrent jurisdiction, except in cases where they possessed jurisdiction independent of national authority, before the formation of the constitution.-De Lorro v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398. Nor can any admiralty jurisdiction be established by a foreign power within the United States, unless warranted by, and in pursuance of treaties.-Glass v. schr. Betsey, 3 Dall. 6.
The district court has jurisdiction in revenue cases, although the property seized may never have come into the possession of its officers. It derives its jurisdiction not from any supposed possession of its officers, but from the act and place of forfeiture. When once it has acquired a regular jurisdiction, no subsequent irregularity will avoid it.-The Bolina, 1 Gall. 75.
This court has inherent jurisdiction over prize causes, determinable not by the locality, but by the subject matter of such causes.-Brown v. United States, 8 Cr. 137. The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546. Act 26th June, 1812, sec. 6. 3 Dall. The Emeline, 1 Gall. 574.
Hence it takes cognizance not only of captures made at sea, and in creeks, havens, and rivers, but also of captures made on land by a naval force, or by its cooperation.-Brown v. United States, 8 Cr. 137.
And in cases of capture without just cause, this court, or the court in which the cause may be finally decided, may decree restitution in whole or in part; or if the capture be made without probable cause, or otherwise unreasonably, may decree damages and costs to the party injured, for which the owners and commanders of the vessels making such captures, and also the vessels, are liable.-Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cr. 2.
As a court of prize it has power to carry into effect the sentences of the old continental courts of appeals in prize causes.—Ibid.
But the district, or other court of the United States, has not jurisdiction over a public vessel of war belonging to a foreign nation at peace with the United States, allowed to enter their ports, and demeaning herself there in a friendly manner.The Exchange v. M'Fadden, 7 Cr. 116.
Nor has the district court jurisdiction on a libel for damages, for the capture of a vessel as prize, by the commissioned cruiser of a belligerent power, although the captured vessel belonged to citizens of the United States, and the capturing vessel and her commander be found and proceeded against within the jurisdiction of the court, the captured vessel being carried infra præsidia of the captors.-U. States v. Peters. The Cassius, 3 Dall. 121. Sergt. Con. Law, 203.
Nor is the captured vessel become the property of the captor, though in the power of the court, liable to be applied by the district court to the redress of alleged torts committed on the high seas on the property of our citizens.-Ibid. The Invincible, 1 Wh. 138.
The district court has jurisdiction over captures made by foreign vessels of war, of the property of our citizens, or of other nations with whom the United States are at peace, where such vessels act under a commission issued within the United States, or are equipped, or their force augmented in this country, in violation of its laws and neutrality; and this, whether such capturing vessel be a public ship of war or a privateer.-Talbot v. Jansen, 3 Dall. 133. Moody v. The Betsey, 3 Dall, 288, n.
572. The district court shall have cognizance of complaints by whomso ever instituted, in cases of capture made within the waters of the United States, or within a marine league of the coasts or shores thereof.(1)
(1) Act April 20th, 1818, sec. 7.
Brig Alerta, 9 Cr. 159. Glass v. Schr. Betsey, 3 Dall. 6. 298. Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283.
The Estrella, 4 Wheat.
And the court may decree restitution in whole or in part, of the specific property, when voluntarily brought within its jurisdiction, but may not decree vindictive damages, as in ordinary cases of torts.-L'Amistad de Rues, 5 Wheat. 385.
As a court of admiralty, the district court has exclusive original cognizance of cases of salvage, and may determine to whom the residue of property, after deduction of salvage, belongs,—Martin v. Hunter's lessee, 1 Wheat. 335. M'Donough v. Dannery, 3 Dall. 182.-even where the parties are aliens.-Mason v. Ship Blaireau, 2 Cr. 249.
This court has jurisdiction also over all torts and injuries committed upon the high seas, and in ports and harbours within the ebb and flow of the tide.-Martin v. Hunter's lessee, 1 Wheat. 304. The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546. De Lovis v. Boit, 1 Gall. 398. Burke v. Trevitt, Mason, 96. Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mason, 242.
And concurrent with the common law courts, over all maritime contracts, wherever made, or whatever be the form, including charter parties, affreightments, marine hypothecations, contracts for maritime service in building, repairing, supplying, and navigating ships; policies of insurance, contracts between part owners of ships, contracts and quasi contracts, averages, contributions, and jettisons.-De Lovis v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398. The Jerusalem, 2 Gall. 191. The Mary, 1 Paine, 671.
It has jurisdiction, also, in suits by material men in rem and in personam: a suit in personam being always maintainable, but suits in rem to enforce a specific lien, only in cases in which the lien has attached.-The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438. Jerusalem, 2 Gall. 345. The Aurora, 1 Wheat. 96. The Anne, 1 Mason, 508. The Robert Fulton, 1 Paine, 620.
Over suits against a ship, to recover pilotage, earned in piloting a vessel from the high seas into a port in the United States, and for pilotage performed on, from or to the sea-The Anne, Mason, 508.
Seizures of the description mentioned in article 571, are properly civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, triable by the district court, but not by jury.— U. S. v. Betsey and Charlotte, 4 Cr. 443. Wheelen v. U. States, 7 Cr. 112. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297.
The jurisdiction by proceeding in rem, is exclusively vested in the district court by the act of September 24th, 1789, and the circuit court cannot entertain it.—Ketland v. The Casius, 2 Dall. 365. The Samuel, 1 Wheat. 9. U. S. v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297. U. States v. The Sally, 2 Cr. 106. And in proceedings in rem, it may order the thing to be taken into custody of the law, aud it is to be presumed in custody of the law, unless the contrary appear: and a vessel libelled is placed under the absolute control of the court.-4 Cranch, 2.
The place of seizure, and not that of committing the offence, determines the court, which has jurisdiction of the cause. Hence no judicial cognizance can attach upon a forfeiture in rem, under the above recited act, until seizure be made; for, until seizure, the forum cannot be ascertained.-U. S. v. Brig Ann, 9 Cr. 289. U. S. v. The Betsey, 4 Cr. 443. Keene v. U. S. 5 Cr. 304. The Octavia, 1 Gall. 488. And if seizure be made within one'district and the subject of the seizure be removed to another, it will be remitted to the proper district.-The Abby, 1 Mason, 360. The Little Ann, 1 Paine, 40. But cognizance of seizures on the high seas belongs to the court of that district into which the property is brought.—Ibid. The Merino, 9 Wheat. 891.
If a seizure be made within a district of the United States of a vessel for breach of an act of congress, the court is not debarred from its jurisdiction, by reason of a prior seizure of the vessel, by the naval force of the United States within the tertorial jurisdiction of a foreign friendly power, though such seizure be an offence against that power.-Ship Richmond v. U. S. 9 Cr. 102.
If a seizure be made, yet be abandoned, and the property restored, the rights acquired by the seizure are lost, and the jurisdiction of the court being thereby divested, can be restored only by a new seizure.-The Brig Ann, 9 Cr. 289. The Abby, Mason, 363.
573. It has also exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, and on waters, other than those navigable by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts, or on the high seas, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the United States.(1)
574. It has cognizance concurrent with the courts of the several states, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations, or a treaty of the United States.(2)
575. It has cognizance also concurrent with the courts and magistrates of the several states, and the circuit courts of the United States, of all suits at common law, where the United States, or any officer thereof, under the authority of an act of congress sues, although the matter in dispute do not amount to one hundred dollars.(3)
576. It has jurisdiction, exclusively of the courts of the several states, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description in article 580.(4)
577. It has power to grant writs of injunction to operate within its proper district, in all cases which may come before the circuit court of the district, as is now exercised by any of the judges of the supreme court under the rules, regulations, and restrictions, prescribed by the several acts of congress, establishing the judiciary of the United States. But, an injunction may not be issued by the district judge where the party has had a reasonable time to apply to the circuit court for the writ, nor unless so ordered by the circuit court, continue longer than to the circuit court then next ensuing.(5)
578. The trial of issues in fact, in the district court in all cases, except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, is by jury.(6)
579. All writs and processes issuing from the district court, bear teste of the judge of such court, or (if that office be vacant,) of the clerk thereof, and are sealed with the seal of the court, and signed by the clerk. The seals are provided at the expense of the United States.(7)
(1) Act 24th Sept. 1789, sec. 9.—4 Cr. 443, 7 Cr. 112.
(2) Act 24th Sept. 1789, sec. 9.
(4) Act 24th Sept. 1789, sec. 9.
If the seizing officer refuse to institute proceedings in rem, the court may, on application of the aggrieved party compel him to proceed to adjudication, or to abandon the seizure.-Ibid. The court may compel a redelivery of the property or its value, to those ultimately entitled to it, either by original suit or a summary decretal order in a cause already before the court.-8locum v. Maybury, 2 Wheat. 246. Burke v. Trevilt, Mason, 29.
To an action commenced in a state court, during the pendency or after the termination of a suit in rem in the district court, on a seizure authorized by an act of congress, the pendency of such suit may be pleaded in abatement, and the decree of condemnation, or of acquittal, if accompanied by a certificate of reasonable cause of seizure, may be pleaded in bar to the action in the state court.-Slocum v. Maybury, 2 Wheat. 1. Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 312. But if the seizure be not warranted by the act of congress, replevin issued from a state to compel a redelivery of the property seized, may be sustained.-Slocum v. Maybury.
All persons having an interest in the subject matter, are in law deemed parties to a proceeding in the district court in rem, for a forfeiture on a seizure under the laws of the United States. Hence the seizing officer, having an interest, is bound by the decree even strangers are bound, because the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction in rem, is as to the points directly in judgment, conclusive upon the whole world.-Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 320.