hereafter mentioned, of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States, exceeding the degree of ordinary misdemeanors, and of them they have concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts. (b) But no person can be arrested in one district for trial in another, and no civil suit can be brought against an inhabitant of the United States out of his district; (c) 2 and the act of Congress provides against the assumption of federal jurisdiction to be created by the assignment of promissory notes, or other choses in action, except foreign bills of exchange. This restriction applies to assignees by operation of law, (d) but it does

3

commit, in all cases of fraud or misconduct, to prison for forty days, and is the judge of all matters of law and fact, and there is to be no appeal from his decisions; but certiorari will lie to remove all suits above £10.

(b) See infra, pp. 360–363.

(c) Process of foreign attachment cannot be issued by the circuit courts of the United States, where the defendant is domiciled abroad, or not found within the district. The circuit courts cannot issue process beyond the limits of their district, except subpoena, for witnesses and executions in two special cases. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters U. S. 300.1

(d) Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332.

1 Saddler v. Hudson, 2 Curtis C. C. 6. In Allen v. Blunt, 1 Blatchf. C. C. 480, in an action upon a judgment rendered in the Circuit Court in Massachusetts, the plaintiff failed to recover, because it did not affirmatively appear on the face of the record from that court, that the defendant was personally served with process within that district. And see Sadlier v. Fallon, 2 Curtis C. C. 579.

2 "But a civil suit may be brought against an inhabitant of the United States, in any district in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ." Act of Congress of September 24th, 1789, (1 Statutes at Large, 78.) The circuit courts have jurisdiction of torts, wherever committed, in cases where they have jurisdiction of the persons of the parties. Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. U. S. 115. The state courts have jurisdiction in actions of trover, against a postmaster, for non-delivery of a letter. Teal v. Felton, 12 How. U. S. 284.

3 A debt secured by a bond and mortgage is a "chose in action" within the meaning of the statute. Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. U. S. 441. In this case, the question was raised whether the act of Congress, denying the courts of the United States jurisdiction in cases where suits are brought on choses in action, under the circumstances mentioned in the text, was within the constitutional powers of Congress; and the court held that it was. See, also, Smith v. Kernochen, 7 How. U. S. 198. Although the assignor make the assignment for the express purpose of giving the United States courts jurisdiction, they will not have jurisdiction, unless the assignee was also privy to, or entertained such purpose. The rights of the remote assignee of a chose in action shall not be prejudiced by the disability of intermediate holders, if the party first entitled to the debt could have sued under the act, and the assignee now occupy the same position. Milledollar v. Bell, 2 Wallace Jr. C. C. 334. The assignee is not restrained from bringing suit to recover the thing in specie, or damages for its detention. Deshler v. Dodge, 16 How. U. S. 622.

not apply to notes payable to bearer; (e) nor to suits by Indorsee v. Indorser, for that creates a new contract; (f) nor to suits in equity by a judgment creditor; (g) nor to cases in which the United States are a party. (h) The circuit courts have also appellate jurisdiction from all final decrees and judgments in the district courts, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds fifty dollars. If the remedy be on final decrees in the district courts, in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and the matter in dispute exceeds three hundred dollars, it is by appeal; and if on final judgments in civil actions, and the matter in dispute exceeds fifty dollars, it is by writ of error.(¿) And if *303 any suit be commenced * in a state court against an alien, or by a citizen of the state in which the suit is brought against a citizen of another state, or against a citizen of the same state claiming lands under a grant from another state, and the matter in dispute exceeds five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, the defendant, on giving security, may remove the cause to the next circuit court. (a) The circuit courts have also original cognizance in equity and at law of all suits arising under the revenue laws of the United States, or under any law of the United States relative to copyrights and patent-rights growing out of inventions and discoveries, and to protect such rights by injunction. (6) 2 The juris

(e) Bullard v. Bell, 1 Mason, 251; Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Peters U. S. 318. (f) Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheaton, 146.

(g) Bean v. Smith, 2 Mason, 252; Dexter v. Smith, Ibid. 303.

(h) Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheaton, 904.

(i) Acts of Congress of September 24th, 1789, sec. 11, 21, 22; and March 3d, 1803, c. 40, sec. 2.

(a) Act of Congress of September 24th, 1789, sec. 12. In Smets v. Williams, 4 Paige, 364, it was declared, that the amount of the original claim of the plaintiff, and not the amount ultimately found due, determined the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery of New York, where it was limited to a certain sum.

(b) Acts of April 17th, 1800, c. 25, sec. 3; of February 15th, 1819, sec. 1, and of July 4th, 1836, c. 357, sec. 17; act of March 2d, 1833, entitled, further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, c. 57, sec. 2.

* When an indorsee of a paper, other than a foreign bill of exchange, sues a remote indorser, and is obliged to trace his title through intermediate indorsers, the United States Circuit Court has no jurisdiction, unless it be shown that all the intermediate persons could have sustained an action in the United States Circuit Court to recover the contents of the paper. Campbell v. Jordan, 1 Hemp. C. C. R. 534. 1 See Hubbard v. Northern R. R. Co. 25 Vermont, 725.

2 The mere fact that the subject-matter of a contract is a patent right, does not bring it within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. Burr v. Gregory, 2 Paine

diction in cases of copyrights applies, without regard to the character of the parties, or the amount in controversy; and with respect to the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, it may be laid down as the settled doctrine, that they are courts of limited, though not of inferior jurisdiction; and it is necessary, therefore, that there should appear upon the record of a circuit court, the facts or circumstances which give jurisdiction, either expressly or by necessary legal intendment. (c)

District Courts.

(3.) The district as well as the circuit courts are derived from the power granted to Congress by the constitution, of constituting tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. (d) The United States are at present divided into thirty-five districts, which generally consist of an entire state; but in New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, there are more districts than one. A court is established in each district, with some exceptions, consisting of one judge, who holds annually, in most of them, four stated terms, and in some of them only three, or two, or one; and he holds, also, special courts in his discretion. There are at present only twenty-nine district judges; and it seems to be practically settled, since the act of 1801, that Congress may, in their discretion, abolish the inferior courts, and create new ones under a different organization.

The district courts have, exclusive of the state courts,* cog- * 304

(c) Turner v. The Bank of North America, 4 Dallas, 11; McCormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheaton, 192. Sec, also, post, p. 314. The circuit courts are not authorized to issue writs of mandamus, except when necessary for the exercise of their acknowledged jurisdiction. M'Intire v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504. It will therefore lic to a district court refusing to proceed to judgment in a case subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Smith v. Jackson, 1 Paine C. C. 453. It is a general principle of the common law, that where a limited authority is given, if the party to whom it is given extends his jurisdiction to objects not within it, his warrant will be no protection to the officers who act under it. Morrell v. Martin, 3 Mann. & Gr. 581.

(d) Art. 1, sec. 8.

C. C. 426; Goodyear v. Day, 1 Blatchf. C. C. 565; Sherman v. The Champlain Transp. Co. 31 Vermont, 163. The jurisdiction of the circuit courts extends to cases arising under the patent laws irrespective of the citizenship of the parties or of the amount involved. Allen v. Blunt, 1 Blatchf. C. C. 480. But the act giving jurisdiction to circuit courts in patent cases, without regard to citizenship, has not changed the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789, providing that no civil suit shall be brought in a circuit or district court, against an inhabitant of the United States, in any other district than that of which he is an inhabitant or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ. Chaffee v. Hayward, 20 How. U. S. 208.

nizance of all lesser crimes and offences, cognizable under the authority of the United States, and committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas, and which are punishable by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or when corporal punishment, not exceeding thirty stripes, is to be inflicted. (a) They have also exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty, and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under imposts, navigation, or trade laws of the United States, where the seizures are made upon the high seas, or on waters within their districts navigable from the sea with vessels of ten or more tons burden; (b) and also of all other seizures made under the laws of the United States; and also of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under those laws. They have also cognizance, concurrent with the circuit courts and the state courts, of causes where an alien sues for a tort committed in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States; and of all suits at common law, in which the United States are plaintiffs, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to two hundred dollars. They have jurisdiction, likewise, exclusive of the courts of the several states, of all suits against consuls or viceconsuls, except for offences above the magnitude which has been mentioned. (c) They have also cognizance of complaints by whomsoever instituted, in cases of captures made within the waters of the United States, or within a marine league of its coast; (d) and to repeal patents unduly obtained. (e)

(a) By the acts of Congress of August 23d, 1842, c. 188, and of August 8th, 1846, c. 98, the district courts were declared to have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts, of all crimes and offences against the United States, the punishment of which is not capital.

(b) The exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is understood to be exclusive as between the district and circuit courts, and that the jurisdiction may be concurrent with courts of common law, in cases in which a common-law remedy may be adequate and proper, inasmuch as the Judiciary Act of 1789, sec. 9, when on this very point, "saves to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it."

(c) Act of Congress of September 24th, 1789, c. 20, sec. 9. By act of Congress of August 8th, 1846, c. 105, the district and circuit courts, and the commissioners to take affidavits, &c., have jurisdiction, as justices of the peace, against offenders against the United States, and, on the application of foreign consuls and commercial agents, to enforce their awards and decrees by arrest and imprisonment, &c.

(d) Act of April 20th, 1818, c. 88, sec. 7.

(e) Act of February 21st, 1793, c. 49, sec. 10. By the act of Congress of August

The judges of the district courts have, also, in cases where the party has not had a reasonable time to apply to the Circuit Court, as full power to grant writs of injunction to operate within their respective districts, as is exercised by the judges of the Supreme Court, and to continue until the next Circuit * 305 Court. (a) They may also grant injunctions, in particular cases, under the Act for the better organization of the treasury department. (b)

In addition to these general powers vested in the district courts, they have, in those cases where the districts are so situated as not to permit conveniently the presence of a judge of the Supreme Court, the powers of a circuit court superadded to their ordinary powers of a district court. (c)

To guard against the inconvenience of a difference of opinion between the circuit judge and the district judge, when holding together a circuit court, it is provided by law, that in all cases of appeal or error, from the district to the circuit court, judgment is to be rendered in conformity to the opinion of the judge of the Supreme Court presiding in such circuit court. And in all other cases of a disagreement of opinion between the circuit and district judges, the point may be certified into the Supreme Court for its decision; but in no case shall imprisonment be allowed, or punishment be inflicted, where the judges of the Circuit Court are divided in opinion upon the question. (d)

The superior courts of the several territories of the United States, in which no district court is established, have the enlarged jurisdiction of circuit courts, subject to revision by writ of error and appeal to the Supreme Court. (e) The district and territorial judges of the United States are required to reside within their

23d, 1842, c. 188, the district courts, as courts of admiralty, and the circuit courts, as courts of equity, are to be deemed always open for the purpose of filing pleadings and issuing processes, and for interlocutory motions and orders.

(a) Act of February 13th, 1807, c. 13, sec. 1.

(b) Act of Congress of May 15th, 1820, c. 107, sec. 4 and 5.

(c) Act of February 19th, 1831, c. 28.

(d) Act of April 29th, 1802, c. 31, sec. 5, 6. ·

(e) Act of March 3d, 1805, c. 38, sec. 1.

1 The question upon which the disagreement takes place must be specifically stated.

It is not sufficient to certify, generally, that the judges disagreed upon the whole case as to what judgment should be rendered. Sadler v. Hoover, 7 How. U. S. 646.