Слике страница
PDF
ePub

CHAPTER 1.

Suits and prosecutions-Jurisdiction-Practice- Evidence-Liens

LimitationsCompromises and remissions—— United States attorneysDuties as to prosecutions CommissionersClerks of courtsReports, etc.

NOTE.—"The Judicial Code," an Act to codify, revise and amend the laws relating to the judiciary, approved March 3, 1911 (36 Stat. 1087) goes into effect January 1, 1912. It abolishes circuit courts (Sec. 289) and imposes the powers and duties upon district courts.

Several of the sections in this chapter are superseded as such and reproduced as noted under the appropriate sections. The provisions, so far as they are substantially the same as existing statutes, are construed as continuations thereof and not as new enactments. (Sec. 294).

Jurisdiction of district courts.

SEC. 563. The district courts shall have jurisdiction as follows:

First. Of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas, the punishment of which is not capital, except in the cases mentioned in section fifty-four hundred and twelve, Title “Crimes."

*

Third. Of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under any law of the United States.

[merged small][ocr errors]

Fifth. Of all suits in equity to enforce the lien of the United States upon any real estate for any internal-revenue tax, or to subject to the payment of any such tax any real estate owned by the delinquent, or in which he has any right, title, or interest. (Sec. 3207, p. 105.)

United States v. Shaw (39 Fed. Rep., 433).

[ocr errors]

*

*

Eighth. *

And of all seizures on land and on waters not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

Coffey v. United States (116 U. S., 427; 117 Id., 233).
See Sec. 24 of “The Judicial Code,” Act of March 3, 1911.

Jurisdiction of circuit courts.

SEC. 629. The circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Fourth. * * Of all causes arising under any law providing internal revenue.

This clause was not repealed by the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 470), or by the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat., 552), defining the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, and these courts have jurisdiction in suits arising under the revenue laws, although the amount in dispute is less than $2,000. (Ames v. Hager, 36 Fed. Rep., 129; Commissioners v. Buckner, 48 Fed. Rep., 533.)

Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain (192 U.S., 397; T. D. 760).

Twentieth. Exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States, except where it is or may be otherwise provided by law, and concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts of crimes and offenses cognizable therein.

Circuit courts abolished after January 1, 1912. (Sec. 289, Act of March 3, 1911.)

The original judiciary act of September 24, 1789, remained in force with scarcely any modification until the act of March 3, 1875, which greatly enlarged the jurisdiction of the circuit courts (amended by the act of March 3, 1887; corrected by the act of August 13, 1888, passed to cure defects in the enrollment

of the act of March 3, 1887). AN ACT To correct the enrollment of an act approved March third, eighteen hundred

and eighty-seven, entitled “An act to amend sections one, two, three, and ten of an act to determine the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States, and to regulate the removal of causes from the State courts, and for other purposes, approved March third, eighteen hundred and seventy-five. (Act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat., 433.)

SEC. 1. That the circuit courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sumor value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, *

United States circuit courts have original jurisdiction when the right of either party depends on the validity of an act of Congress. (Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S., 611.)

Exclusive jurisdiction of courts of United States. Sec. 711. The jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States in the cases and proceedings hereinafter mentioned shall be exclusive of the courts of the several States:

First. Of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States.

Second. Of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the United States.

Third. Of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it.

Fourth. Of all seizures under the laws of the United States on land or on waters not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

*
Reenacted Sec. 256 of “The Judicial Code," Act March 3, 1911.

The Supreme Court is the only court of the United States which derives any part of its power directly from the Constitution. The circuit and district courts of the United States are, by authority of the Constitution, the creatures of the National Legislature, having such jurisdiction, and only such, as Congress has been pleased to confer upon them, and having no common-law jurisdiction, though drawing upon the common law for modes of procedure and practice when necessary to carry into effect the jurisdiction given by statute. (United States v. Cultus Joe, 15 Int. Rev. Rec., 58.)

In general a crime against the laws of the United States is not cognizable in a State court. (Ex parte Houghton, 27 Int. Rev. Rec., 273.)

The same offense may be made punishable both under the laws of a State and of the United States; and over such offenses the State and Federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction. (United States v. Wells, 15 Int. Rev. Rec., 56; Fed. Cas. No. 16665.)

*

*

*

The same act may constitute an offense against the United States and against a State, subjecting the guilty party to punishment under the laws of each government; and may embrace two or more offenses. (Cross v. North Carolina, 132 U. S., 131, and cases cited. And see Teal v. Felton, 12 How., 284, 292; Crossley v. California, 168 U. S., 641.)

A suit against an internal-revenue collector to recover taxes alleged to have been illegally collected is cognizable in the United States circuit court, both under section 629, giving that court jurisdiction of causes arising under any law providing internal revenue, and under act of March 3, 1887, giving it jurisdiction of causes arising under the laws of the United States. (Commissioners of Sinking Fund of Louisville v. Buckner (1891), circuit court, 48 Fed. Rep., 533. See Insurance Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall., 541; City of Philadelphia v. Collector, 5 Wall., 570; Hornthal v. Collector, 9 Wall., 560; Assessor v. Osborne, 9 Wall., 567.)

Williams v. Reynolds (131 U.S. cxi), Cincinnati Brewing Co. v. Bettman, Collr. (102 Fed. Rep., 16).

A State court has no authority to enjoin the proceedings of a Federal court. (Central National Bank, Boston, v. Hazard, 49 Fed. Rep., 293.)

Conflicting State and Federal jurisdiction. (Booth v. St. Louis Fire Engine Manufacturing Co., 40 Fed. Rep., 1.).

Jurisdiction where a federal question is involved. (Adams Express Co. v. Michigan, 177 U. S., 404.)

Offenses begun in one district and completed in another. Sec. 731. When any offense against the United States is begun in one judicial district and completed in another, it shall be deemed to have been committed in either, and may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in either district, in the same manner as if it had been actually and wholly committed therein.

Reenacted Sec. 42 of “The Judicial Code,” Act March 3, 1911.

The court of the district where the res is seized has jurisdiction though the violation of law occurred in another State. (U. S. v. 396 Barrels of Distilled Spirits, 3 Int. Rev. Rec. 114; Fed. Cas. No. 16502.) Suits for taxes, penalties, or forfeltures to be brought in the name of the United States. SEC. 919. All suits for the recovery of any duties, imposts, or taxes, or for the enforcement of any penalty or forfeiture provided by any act respecting imports or tonnage, or the registering and recording or enrolling and licensing of vessels, or the internal revenue, or direct taxes, and all suits arising under the postal laws, shall be brought in the name of the United States.

Where sults for penalties, forfeitures, and taxes are to be brought. Sec. 732. All pecuniary penalties and forfeitures may be sued for and recovered either in the district where they accrue or in the district where the offender is found.

Reenacted Sec. 43 of “The Judicial Code," Act March 3, 1911. Sec. 733. Taxes accruing under any law providing internal revenue may be sued for and recovered either in the district where the liability for such tax occurs or in the district where the delinquent resides.

Reenacted Sec. 44 of “The Judicial Code,” Act March 3, 1911. See section 3213, Revised Statutes, page 109. United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. (10 Ben., 144; 24 Int. Rev. Rec., 341). The Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, (19 Wall., 227; 22 Int. Rev. Rec., 310).

Jurisdiction in case of actions on deputy collectors' bonds. (Sec. 3148, p. 63.)

Officers suffering injuries may maintain suits for damages in the United States circuit court of the district where the party resides or may be found. (Sec. 3171, p. 83.) 72170°-11-25

Jury may be waived in the trial of petty offenses. (Shick v. U. S., 195 U.S., 65.)

Residence of a corporation. (Booth et al. v. St. Louis Fire Engine Manufacturing Co., 40 Fed. Rep., 1.)

Penal offenses created by the statute, whether prosecuted by indictment or information, must be accurately and clearly described in the pleadings for recovery of the penalty. (United States v. Mann, 24 Int. Rev. Rec., 20; 95 U.S., 580.)

When the crime is a statutory one, the offense must be charged with precision and certainty. (Ledbetter v. United States, 170 U. S., 606.).

The accused must be apprised by the indictment, with reasonable certainty of the nature of the accusation against him. (U. S. v. Simmons, 96 U. S., 360.)

Persons not to be arrested in one district for trial in another in civil actions. SEC. 1. [Act of Aug. 13, 1888 (25 Stat., 433), amending act of Mar. 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 470).) But no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another in any civil action before a circuit or district court; and no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different States, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.

See sec. 51 of “The Judicial Code," Act of March 3, 1911.

A corporation may be indicted for the acts of its officers or employees. (U.S. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 8 Int. Rev. Rec. 148; Fed. Cas. No. 14509.)

Suit against foreign corporations doing business in a State. (Wilson Packing Co. v. Hu 25 Int. Rev. Rec., 137.)

Foreign corporations, where to be sued. (Mohr & Mohr Distilling Co. v. Sundry Insurance Companies, 28 Int. Rev. Rec., 218.)

Service of process on nonresident defendant on compulsory attendance illegal. (United States v. Bridgman, 26 Int. Rev. Rec., 139.) Also where fraud is used to induce defendant to come within jurisdiction of court (Steiger v. Bonn, 26 Int. Rev. Rec., 365). A party going into another State as witness exempt from process (Brooks v. Farwell, 26 Int. Rev. Rec., 355).

Sections 737, 740 provide for cases where there are two or more defendants residing in different districts.

A criminal prosecution must be had in the district where the crime or offense was committed. (Sec. 563, R. S.)

In conspiracy to defraud, the parties may be tried in any district where the conspiracy is committed or an overt act done in pursuance of the illegal purpose. (U. S. v. Rindskopf, 6 Biss. 259; Fed. Cas. No. 16165.)

Removal of sults or prosecutions against officers from State courts to United States circult courts.

Sec.643. (As amended by act of Feb.8, 1894 (28 Stat., 36).] When any civil suit or criminal prosecution is commenced in any court of a State against any officer appointed under or acting by authority of any revenue law of the United States now or hereafter enacted, or against any person acting under or by authority of any such officer, on account of any act done under color of his office or of any such law, or on account of any right, title, or authority claimed by such officer or other person under any such law; or is commenced against any person holding property or estate by title derived from any such officer, and affects the validity of any such revenue law; * the said suit or prosecution may, at any time before the trial or final hearing thereof, be removed for trial into the circuit court next to be holden in the district where the same is pending, upon the petition of such defendant to said circuit court, and in the following manner: Said petition shall set forth the nature of the suit or prosecution, and be verified by affidavit; and, together with a certificate signed by an attorney or counselor at law of some court of record of the State where such suit or prosecution is commenced, or of the United States, stating that, as counsel for the petitioner, he has examined the proceedings against him, and carefully inquired into all the matters set forth in the petition, and that he believes them to be true, shall be presented to the said circuit court, if in session, or if it be not, to the clerk thereof at his office, and shall be filed in said office. The cause shall thereupon be entered on the docket of the circuit court, and shall proceed as a cause originally commenced in that court; but all bail and other security given upon such suit or prosecution shall continue in like force and effect as if the same had proceeded to final judgment and execution in the State court.

When the suit is commenced in the State court by summons, subpæna, petition, or another process except capias, the clerk of the circuit court shall issue a writ of certiorari to the State court, requiring it to send to the circuit court the record and proceedings in the cause.

When it is commenced by capias, or by any other similar form of proceeding by which a personal arrest is ordered, he shall issue a writ of habeas corpus cum causa, a duplicate of which shall be delivered to the clerk of the State court, or left at his office, by the marshal of the district, or his deputy, or by some person duly authorized thereto; and thereupon it shall be the duty of the State court to stay all further proceedings in the cause, and the suit or prosecution, upon delivery of such process, or leaving the same as aforesaid, shall be held to be removed to the circuit court, and any further proceedings, trial, or judgment therein in the State court shall be void.

And if the defendant in the suit or prosecution be in actual custody on mesne process therein, it shall be the duty of the marshal, by virtue of the writ of habeas corpus cum causa, to take the body of the defendant into his custody, to be dealt with in the cause according to law and the order of the circuit court, or, in vacation, of any judge thereof; and if, upon the removal of such suit or prosecution, it is made to appear to the circuit court that no copy of the record and proceedings therein in the State court can be obtained, the circuit court may allow and require the plaintiff to proceed de novo, and to file a declaration of his cause of action, and the parties may thereupon proceed as in actions originally brought in said circuit court. On failure of the plaintiff so to proceed, judgment of non prosequitur may be rendered against him, with costs for the defendant.

Reenacted Sec. 33 of “The Judicial Code,” Act March 3, 1911.

Under this section, which declares that after removal “any further proceeding, trial, or judgment therein in the State court shall be void," an indictment found in a State court after the removal of the cause to the United States circuit court was null; and where, upon habeas corpus cum causa, it appears that the prisoners were in the discharge of their duty as revenue officers of the United States when the act was committed, and were without fault, they will be discharged (State of North Carolina v. Kirkpatrick et al. (1890); 42 Fed. Rep., 689; 36 Int. Rev. Rec., 133).

This act is constitutional. (Sup. Court, State of N. C.; State v. Hoskins et al.; 23 Int. Rev. Rec., 263; 77 N. C. 530.)

Removal of criminal case. (Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S., 257; 26 Int. Rev. Rec., 90.)

« ПретходнаНастави »