Jurisdiction

§ 54. concurrent with court of claims.-The district courts of the United States shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the court of claims as to all matters named in the preceding section, where the amount of the claim does not exceed one thousand dollars. (24 U. S. Stats. 505, sec. 2.)

§ 55. Mandamus to compel performance of duty by carrier. -District courts shall have jurisdiction upon the relation of any person, firm or corporation to issue a writ of mandamus against a common carrier to compel him to move and transport traffic, or to furnish facilities for the transportation, under the Act of March 2, 1889, Amendatory to the Act to Regulate Commerce, approved February 4, 1887.

Procedure in bankruptcy cases.-The Federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over actions brought by assignees to recover property claimed to have been in violation of law, where the value exceeds five hundred dollars. (Olcott v. McLean, 16 Bank. Reg. 79.) Its jurisdiction is of two kinds; first, as a court of bankruptcy, and second, of an ordinary court over suits at law or in equity, brought by or against the assignee. (Lathrop v. Drake, 91 U. S. 516.) It has jurisdiction to enforce a lien upon the property of the bankrupt against third persons who have purehased the property (Buckman v. Dunn, 16 Bank. Reg. 470), or to entertain an application to vacate a certificate of discharge. (Allen v. Thompson, 10 Fed. Rep. 116.) It may order the sale of mortgaged real estate, but notice must be first given to the mortgagee to show why the sale should not have the effect of discharging his lien (Ray v. Norseworthy, 23 Wall. 128); and personal service on one member of a firm is not sufficient. (Isett v. Stuart, 16 Bank. Reg. 191.) A petition against a bankrupt and his sureties on a bond for goods seized may be proceeded in

on the equity side of the court. (Lisburger v. Gamett, 1 Hughes, 620.) Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to recover the value of goods fraudulently transferred by the bankrupt. (Bramley v. Goodrich, 15 Bank. Reg. 289.) They have jurisdiction of controversies as to funds in the hands of an assignee, without regard to citizenship (In re Sabine, 18 Bank. Reg. 151); and petitioning creditors of one district may apply to the district court of another district to restrain interference with debtor's property. (In re Martin, 5 Law Rep. 158.) So the assignee may recover moneys paid residents of another district in violation of the bankrupt act in the district court of that district (Shearman v. Bingham, 3 Cliff. 552); but he cannot proceel by attachment against a party in a district where the latter neither resides nor is found. (Nazro v. Cragin, 3 Dill. 474.) An assignee elected in one district may institute proceedings in another district. (Shearman v. Bingham, 5 Bank. Reg. 34; 7 Bank. Reg. 490; Goodall v. Tuttle, 7 Bank. Reg. 193; Moore v. Jones, 23 Vt. 739); but see In re Richardson, 2 Bank. Reg. 202; Markson v. Heaney, 4 Bank. Reg. 510; Jobbins v. Moutague, 6 Bank. Reg. 509.) An assignee in bankruptcy, if made a party, must come in and assert his rights, or he will be barred by decree on default. (Turner v. T. B. & W. R. Co., 8 Biss. 381.)

§56 (564). Seizures for forfeiture.—Proceedings on seizures for forfeiture of any vessel or cargo entering any port of entry which has been closed by the President in pursuance of law, or of goods and chattels coming from a State or section declared by proclamation of the President to be in insurrection, into other parts of the United States, or of any vessel or vehicle conveying such property, or conveying persons to or from such State or section; or of any vessel belonging, in whole or in part, to any inhabitant of such State or section, may be prosecuted in any district court into which the property so seized may be taken, and proceedings

instituted; and the district court thereof shall have as full jurisdiction over such proceedings as if the seizure was made in that district. (Rev. Stats. sec. 564. See secs. 5301, 5317.)

Original jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction over such proceedings is original (Lathrop v. Drake, 91 U. S. 516; Bachman v. Packard, 2 Sawy. 264), in the district where seizure is made (Shearman v. Bingham, 1 Low. 575), and is not ousted by decree of the State court. (In re Independent Ins. Co., 2 Low, 97.)

§ 57 (565). Prize causes after appeal.— Any district court may, notwithstanding an appeal to the Supreme Court, in any prize cause, make and execute all necessary orders for the custody and disposal of the prize property, and, in case of an appeal from a decree of condemnation, may proceed to make a decree of distribution, so far as to determine what share of the prize shall go to the captors, and what vessels are entitled to participate therein. (Rev. Stats., sec. 565. See sec. 4637.)

§ 58 (566). Trial of issues of fact.-The trial of issues of fact in the district courts, in all causes except cases in equity and cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and except as otherwise provided in proceeding in bankruptcy, shall be by jury. In causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction relating to any matter of contract or tort arising upon or concerning any vessel of twenty tons burden or upwards, enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and at the time employed in the business of commerce and navigation between places in different States and Territories upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting the lakes,

the trial of issues of fact shall be by jury when either party requires it. (Rev. Stats. sec. 566.)

Trial of issues of fact.-Sections 649 and 670, post, relating to the trial of issues of fact, apply only to the trials in the circuit court. (Howard v. Crompton, 14 Blatchf. 333.) This clause excluded prize causes (The Eagle, 8 Wall. 15), and does not apply to vessels engaged in the domestic commerce of a State (The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 441; Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555; The Coal Barge, 3 Wall. Jr. 53); but is confined to cases arising upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting them (Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555; The Backus, Newb. Adm. 1); and it embraces artificial communications, such as canals. (The Young America, Newb. Adm. 101. generally The Flora, I Biss. 29; The Globe, 2 Blatchf. 427; The Revenue Cutter, Brown Adm. 76; The Volunteer, Brown Adm. 159; The General Cass, Brown Adm. 334; Allen v. Newberry, 21 How. 244.)

See

Trial by jury.-Trial by jury is rather a mode of exercising jurisdiction than a substantial part of it (The Eagle 8 Wall. 15); and although the court has no power to try an admiralty case by jury except as allowed by statute, yet it may submit a question of fact to commissioners or referees. (Lee v. Thompson, 3 Wood, 167.) So the trial by jury may by waived by the parties. (Henderson v. Distilled Spirits, 14 Wall. 44) The demand for a jury trial must show that the case falls within this section. (Gillet v. Pierce, Brown Adm. 553.)

§ 59 (569). Jurisdiction in cases transferred from territorial courts.-When any territory is admitted as a State, and a district court is established therein, the said district court shall take cognizance of all cases which were pending and undetermined in the superior court of such Territory, from the judgments or decrees to be rendered in which writs of error could have been sued out or appeals taken to the Supreme Court, and

shall proceed to hear and determine the same. (Rev. Stats. sec. 569.)

This section includes civil and criminal cases, and under it this court can revise a judgment of the superior court which was transferred to the district court of the northern district of Florida. (Forsyth v. U. S., 9 How. 571.) The supplementary act of 1848 (9 Stats. 212) applies only to cases that were pending in the territorial courts of Wisconsin, and not those pending in the Supreme Court at the time of its admission as a State. (McNulty v. Batty, 10 How. 72.) If the case pending is not of a Federal character it cannot be transferred to the district court. (McNulty v. Batty, 10 How. 72; Ames v. Colorado Central R. R. Co., 4 Dill. 251; Gaffney v. Gillette, 4 Dill. 264.)

§ 60. (570). Commissioners to administer oaths to appraisers.—Any district judge may appoint commissioners, before whom appraisers of vessels, or goods and merchandiseseized for breaches of any law of the United States, may be sworn? and such oaths, so taken, shall be as effectual as if taken before the judge in open court. (See sec. 938; Rev. Stats. sec. 570.)

§ 61. Circuit court powers of certain district courts abolished. Circuit court powers conferred on certain district courts by the Rev. Stats., sec. 655, were abolished by act of Congress approved February 6, 1889. (25 U. S. Stats. 655.)