Слике страница

of Pennsylvania of 21st March, 1813, entitled, ley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421, Mr. Justice An Act to recharter certain Banks; and it was Story says: “This court will not suffer its juadmitted that the bank commenced the business risdiction to be ousted by the mere joinder, or of banking at Warren, in Pennsylvania, having nonjoinder of formal parties." The converse of been organized under the Act of 1824. The the proposition is equally true. counsel for the bank also produced the note on It has been incontestably shown, 1. That Guy which the suit had been brought.

C. Irvine is not a party, or if a party, is only The counsel for the bank stated, and the de- nominal. 2. That the Lumberman's Bank is fendant's counsel admitted, that this suit was the real party. 3. That this court will (*296 founded on the note.

look at the real parties, for the purpose of en"Whereupon, it appearing to the court that tertaining or excluding jurisdiction. this suit is founded on the note aforesaid, dated This is the case of a corporation aggregate, 6th Sept., 1837; that Guy C. Irvine was, at the part of whose stockholders live in the same date of the institution of this suit, a citizen of State as the defendant. 205*) Pennsylvania, "and that N. A. Lowry This court has decided that a corporation was, at the same date, a citizen of the State of aggregate cannot be a citizen, and cannot litiNew York; that said bank was erected, and gate in the courts of the United States, unless duly organized at Warren, in Pennsylvania, in consequence of the characters of the indiunder the Act of February 28th, 1834, aforesaid; viduals who compose a body politic. The Hope and that six persons mentioned in the record, Insurance Company v. Boardman, 5 Cranch, 57; and sundry other stockholders thereof were, at Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 5 the date of said suit, citizens of the State of Cranch, 61; Breithaupt v. The Bank of Georgia New York, and due consideration being had 1 Peters, 238; Paine's C. C. R. 410; Corporation of the premises, the court are divided in opin- of New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91; 1 ion; one of the judges thereof being of opin- Wash. C. C. R. 146; The Bank of Augusta v. ion that this court has no jurisdiction of the Earle, 13 Peters, 519; 1 Kent's Com. 324–326; case; that the rule, granted as aforesaid, be 3 Cranch, 267; The Commercial and Rail Road made absolute and the record of this suit re- Bank of Vicksburg v. Slocumb et al., decided manded to the Court of Common Pleas of the at this term. County of Warren. The other judge being of Another question arises in this case. opinion that the court has jurisdiction of the This was a foreign attachment; a proceeding case, and that the rule granted as aforesaid be in rem. Do the provisions of the Judiciary denied."

Act extend to any actions but those in perThe judges of the Circuit Court certified this sonam? 1 Story's Laws, n. 1, 57. division of opinion to the Supreme Court of the The act of Congress gives jurisdiction to the United States.

courts of the United States in cases where The case was argued by Mr. M'Candless for “the defendant is an inhabitant, or when he the plaintiff, and by Mr. Marvin for the de. shall be found in the district at the time of fendant.

serving the process." Lowry was not an inMr. M'Candless contended that Guy C. Irvine habitant of the Western District of Pennsyl. is a mere nominal party in the suit, except as vania, nor found there at the time of serving guarantor of the sufficiency of Lowry, the de- the writ. He was at the time the writ issued, fendant. He is one of the garnishees in the and afterwards, residing in the State of New attachment; and he is a competent witness York. in the cause, under the decisions of the court of What is the object of the foreign attachPennsylvania. The nominal plaintiff, who as- ment? It is a proceeding against the lands or signs an obligation, is a competent witness in goods of a defendant, to compel his appear. an action against the obligor. 9 Serg. & Raw. ance. Can a party plaintiff compel the appear. Rep. 20; 2 Brown's Rep. 171. The courts of ance of a defendant in the Circuit Court, by Pennsylvania, even after suit brought, allow | issuing a foreign attachment! It has been dea party on the record to assign the action, de- j cided that this cannot be done. ? Dall. 369; positing with the clerk enough to cover the Sergeant on Attachments, 42. costs of the suit. 3 Binney's Rep. 306. If a Circuit Court of the United States can

The reason of this rule is, that in Pennsyl. not have jurisdiction, originally, can it have vania there are no courts of chancery; and the by the removal of a cause from a State court! assignee of a chose in action is therefore com It was not intended by the 12th section of pelled to bring his suit in the name of the as the Judiciary Act of 1789 to extend the juris.

or. So, also, a bankrupt, who has obtained diction of the courts of the United States over his certificate, and released his claim to the sur. causes brought before them on removal, beplus of his estate, may be a witness. 4 Dall. yond the limits prescribed to them originally.

2 Dall. 172; cited, also, 7 Serg. & Raw. Conklin's Treatise, 78. No suit can be reRep. 116; 3 Rawle's Rep. 407; 1 Peters's C. C. moved to the national court which might not, R 308.

by the Constitution, have been originally com. This court have decided the question now menced in those courts. depending before it. In Brown v. Strode, 5 As to the construction of the note on which Cranch, 903, it was held that the courts of the the action was brought, the counsel cited, 1 United States have jurisdiction in a case be- Peters, 489; 3 Chitty on Commercial and Mar. tween citizens of the same, when the plaintiffs itime Law, 107. are only nominal, for the use of an alien.

Mr. Marvin, for the defendant. Who is the real party in this cause? It is The question raised in this case has never not Guy C. Irvine, but the Lumberman's Bank yet been decided. Four questions have been at Warren. This court have said they would presented in the argument for the plaintiff, look at the real parties in the cause. In Worm- | but one only is depending. Has the Circuit of


the Western District of Pennsylvania jurisdic. y Court of Pennsylvania has been solemnly overtion of the cause ?

ruled. Scott v. Lloyd, 12 Peters, 151. Is the Lumberman's Bank, at Warren, the The case cited from 8 Wheat. (Wormley v. 297*) plaintiff in the cause, hor is Guy C. 'Wormley) was a case in equity. And it rested Irvine the plaintiff ? On the decision of this on its special circumstances. The case cited point the case must be decided. Guy C. Irvine from 5 Cranch, 303, was one in which the is a citizen of Pennsylvania, and Nathaniel A. bond sued upon was taken officially, for the Lowry is a citizen and resident of the State of use of creditors. The bond had been given to New York; and those are the parties on the a public officer for the use of creditors. This record. This brings the case within the pro: was, no doubt, averred in the declaration. The visions of the Constitution of the United real character of the parties was thus apparent States,

on the record. The real party was the creditor. But, it is said, the court will go beyond the As to the removal of the cause to the Circuit parties named in the suit, and inquire who is Court, it being a foreign attachment, the counbeneficially interested. : That it is not the party sel for the defendant contended that there is to the record, which will give or exclude juris. no limitation imposed in the Constitution. The diction; but the party really interested, and he act of Congress protects suits by parties not only is in the contemplation of the act of Con- citizens of the same State, or found in the gress. In this case, it is said, the ac:ion is State in which the action, of whatever kind it brought for the bank, because this is so stated may be, shall be brought. Act of Congress of on the record. But the act of Congress looks 1789, section twelve; Conklin's Treatise, 78, 79. only to the parties on the record.

Suits cannot be removed which are not within Pennsylvania is the only State in the Union the constitutional provision. in which actions in this form are brought. In The affidavits made in the Court of Common New York no such form of proceeding is Pleas of Warren County were improperly ad. known. Would the court in a case brought mitted by that court, and should not be rehere from New York, and standing on the rec- garded here; nothing in the case can be tried ord between parties subject to the jurisdiction by affidavits of this character. of the court, inquire who are the persons real. ly interested in the controversy?

Mr. Justice Baldwin delivered the opinion Was it necessary in this case to state for of the court: whose use the action was brought; and if it This suit was instituted in the Court of Com. was, could issue be taken upon it? If, this mon Pleas of Warren County, Pennsylvania, could be, a collateral issue would be raised; whence it was removed to the Circuit Court the regular inquiry in the cause would not be for the western district of that State, pursuant pursued. In all other States the courts will to the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789, take care that the party really interested has section twelve; and comes before this court on the money which may be recovered. This a certificate of division of opinion between the will be done by the equitable powers of the judges of that court, on a motion to remand courts.

the cause for want of jurisdiction. The legal party in the suit is Guy C. Irvine, Irvine, in whose name the suit is brought, is and the Circuit Court, on its law side, will look a citizen of Pennsylvania; the Lumberman's only to the legal party. The note is not as Bank of Warren is a corporation chartered by signable by indorsement, for it is not a negoti. | a law of that State, and located at Warren; able instrument. It is not given for the pay. part of the stockholders are citizens of New ment of money, but for the office notes of the York, of which State the defendant is also a Lumberman’s Bank. It is not, therefore, with- citizen. The suit is brought upon a paper, of in the statutes which make promissory notes which the following is a copy: negotiable.

"Warren, Pa., 6 September, '37. It is said that Guy C. Irvine is not a party in "$53,000. this cause, because he may be a witness. But "Three months after date, I promise to pay if he can be a witness, which is denied, it to the order of Guy C. Irvine, Esq., fifty-three does not follow that he is not a party. Does thousand dollars, in the office notes of the the jurisdiction of the court of the United Lumberman's Bank of Warren, and payable States depend on the Legislature, or on the de- at their banking house in Warren, Pa.” cisions of the courts of the States? In many of

"N. A. Lowry." the States a party is a witness to an account; Indorsed on side, “Guy C. Irvine.” and according to the rule now set up, this This suit was commenced by the process of would deprive the courts of the United States foreign attachment, agreeably to the law of of jurisdiction in a case between citizens of Pennsylvania; that property of the defendant different States, when an account was the sub- was attached according to its provisions; ject of contestation.

whereupon he appeared, and, by his counsel, The cases cited by the counsel for the plain-moved for the removal of the cause; and havtiff go on the principle that the party has no ing complied with the requisitions of the Juinterest in the cause, the costs having been diciary Act, the cause was ordered to be repaid, and his interest assigned. But in all moved to the Circuit Court. these cases he still continues the plaintiff in *By thus approving and submitting to (*299 the cause. The law is not, however, as stated the process of attachment, the defendant waived by the plaintiff's counsel. It has been decided any privilege to which he was entitled by the by this court that a party who is a plaintiff section of the Judiciary Act, as held by this in a cause, cannot by an assignment of the ac- court in Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 330. 331 ; tion and the payment of the costs, become a so that on his appearance and entry of bail, the 298*] witness; and the decision of the Circuit I attachment was dissolved, and the cause will

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

thenceforth proceed as if it had commenced by tion between this and the case of Brown v. the ordinary process of the court, served on the Strode, 5 Cranch, 303, which was a suit against defendant within the district. The commence an executor on his administration bond, given ment of the action in the Common Pleas, by to the justices of the peace of the county attachment, being expressly provided for in the where the testator died, and who were citizens twelfth section of the Judiciary Act, it must of the State of Virginia, as well as the defendbe considered, when removed into the Circuit ant. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was Court, as an original one.

sustained, on the ground that though the plainThis brings us to the question raised in the tiffs and defendants were citizens of the same argument of the plaintiff's counsel, whether State, the former were mere nominal parties, that court can exercise any jurisdiction over without any interest or responsibility, and made the case, on the ground that the defendant, by the law of Virginia the mere instruments or and some of the stockholders of the bank, are conduits through whom the legal right of the citizens of New York; which would be a fatal real plaintiff could be asserted; as such their objection to the jurisdiction, if the corporation names must be used, for the bond must be is to be considered as the plaintiff and sole given to them in their official capacity; but as party in interest. On this subject, the decisions the person to whom the debt was due was a of the court have been uniform, and, as de. British subject, he was properly considered as clared in the present term, in The Vicksburg the only party plaintiff in the action. WhatBank v. Slocomb, have settled this point decis- ever right of action existed in virtue of the ively; nothing then remains but to ascertain bond, passed by the operation of the law of from the record, as certified, whether the bank Virginia directly to the person for whose bene. is the real plaintiff; for if they are not, then fit it was given, through the conduit appointed as Irvine is admitted to be a citizen of Pennsyl. for that purpose. For such, and kindred cases, vania, and Lowry of New York, the jurisdiction the person or officer thus selected by the law as is undoubted.

its agent, is not a party to the suit; and no The paper on which the suit is brought is transfer of the bond or other security to the not negotiable by the usage or custom of person intrusted is necessary to invest him merchants; it is payable to order; the promise with a complete legal interest or right of acis to pay so many dollars, but not to pay any tion; but cases of this description cannot be certain sum of money; it is a promise to pay applied to actions like the present, in which the amount "in the office notes of the Lumber the interest and responsibility of the parties to man's Bank at Warren,” which are not money, the paper depends on their contract; and and at most a chattel. Not being a promissory the law neither dissolves or transfers any legal note, either by the law merchant, the statute of right of action on or to the party who accepts Anne, or the kindred act of Assembly of Penn- it as security for payment of a pre-existing sylvania, it is not negotiable by indorsement; | debt. and not being under seal, it is not assignable i We are therefore of opinion that the Circuit by the act of Assembly on that subject relating Court has jurisdiction of the case, and direct to bonds. The bank, therefore, cannot sue in that it be so certified. their own name, in virtue of the indorsement This cause came on to be heard on the tranof Irvine in blank; nor could they so sue if it script of the record from the Circuit Court of was specially indorsed to them; because the the United States for the Western District of legal right of action would still remain in Pennsylvania, and on the point and question Irvine, though the equitable interest in the on which the judges of the said Circuit Court thing promised may have passed to the bank. were opposed in opinion, and which was certi. This case, however, is not of that description; fied to this court for its opinion, agreeably to the only evidence of any transfer of the con. the act of Congress in such cases made and protents of the note is the blank indorsement of vided, and was argued by counsel; on conIrvine, and the affidavit of the president of the sideration whereof, it is the opinion of this bank; in the latter of which it is stated that court that the said Circuit Court has jurisdic. the note was received by the bank from the de- tion of the case. Whereupon it is ordered and fendant at the time it bears date, as'a security adjudged that it be so certified to the said Cir. for his previous indebtedness thereto; and that cuit Court accordingly. Irvine had not then or since any interest in said note, except as a guarantor for its payment, and the solvency and sufficiency of the drawer.

In referring to the affidavit, we are not to be *THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff (*801 understood that whatever may be its con

in Error, tents, they would influence our decision; yet, assuming the case to be as there stated, the legal right of action is in Irvine; the paper is JACOB KNIGHT, Benjamin Knight, Isaao 300"] not the evidence of an original *debt,

Knight, and Edward Knight, Defendants in

Error. contracted by a discount thereof; or its reception as payment of a pre-existing debt due the bank; it is only a collateral security, by adding Action on bond-privilege of jail limits-rule the name of Irvine as indorser. Standing as

applies when United States a party. such to the bank, their rights are derivative

Action on a bond given to the United States for through him; and as the indorsement passes

the liberty of the_jall yard in Portland, in the only an equity, the legal interest is in him; he State of Maine. The condition of the bond was is the real plaintiff in a court of law, in which that J. K. and B. K. "should continue true prisonlegal rights alone can be recognized. This con

ers in the custody of the jailer, within the limits

of the jail yard. It was agreed by the counsel sideration points to the true line of discrimina- 1 for the plaintiff and defendants that J. K. and


[ocr errors]

B. K. had remained within "the limits of the jail bounds of said jail yard, until lawfully disyard," as established under the laws of 1787, of charged from said imprisonment, according to Its of the jall yard having in October, 1798, been the laws of the United States in such cases extended over the whole county,

but had oot re: made and provided, and commit no manner of May, 1787, and existing when the act of Congress escape, then the said obligation to be void; was passed, 4th January, 1800, authorizing per otherwise to remain in full force.” 8008 under process from the United States to bave In this case the parties in the Circuit Court the jail

limits," as established by the laws of the agreed to the following statement of facts: "On State. May, 1828, gives the debtors imprisoned under ex: the 30th day of January, last past, Jacob and ecutions from the courts of the United States, at Benjamin Knight were committed to the jail the sult of the United States, the privilege of jail in the city of Portland, on an execution issued limits in the several States, as they were fixed by the laws of the several States at the date of that on a judgment in favor of the said United act.

States, against said Jacob and Benjamin; Whatever might be the Hability of the oficer whereupon the said Jacob and Benjamin, as limits continued to be such as were established un principals, and Isaac and Edward Knight us der the law of Massachusetts of 1787; the bond sureties, gave the bond declared on in this suit; not having been taken under that law, and the con that said Jacob and Benjamin continued to rethose regulations, the parties to the bond, the suit main within the limits of the town of Portland, being upon the bond, are bound for nothing what exclusive of the islands, and did not depart soever but what is contained in the condition, therefrom up to the time of the commencement

The statute of May 19th, 1828, entitled, "An Act of this suit, nor have they since departed there. further to regulate Processes in the courts of the from; but neither the said Jacob nor Benjamin, United States," which proposes only to regulate from the time of the execution of said bond, the mode of proceeding In civil sults, does not devest the publlc of any right, does not violate any

nor afterwards, at any time, lodged in the principle of public policy, but on the contrary night time within the walls of said jail, but remakes provision, in accordance with the policy mained at large within the limits of said town which the government has indicated, by many acts of previous legislation, to conform to state laws,

of Portland, exclusive of the islands belonging in giving to persons imprisoned under their execu- to the same, both day and night. tion the privilege of jall limits, embracing executions at the suit of the United States.

“If, upon the foregoing facts, the court are The cases Wayman v. Southard, 1 Wheat. 10.

of opinion that the condition of said bond has and Beers v. Houghton, 9 Peters, '332, cited and been broken by the said Jacob and Benjamin, affirmed.

and that they have made an escape, then the error to the Circuit Court of the United court are to render judgment, to be entered as

of said October Term, and as on verdict renThe United States, in 1838, instituted an ac. dered for the said United States; and if the tion of debt against the defendants in error,

court shall be of opinion that the obligation of on a bond executed by them on the 30th day of the bond has not been broken, then judgment January, 1838, for the sum of seventeen thou. to be rendered, in manner aforesaid, for the sand four hundred and ninety-four dollars and said defendants.” four cents; the condition of which was as fol. And each party reserves to themselves the lows:

right to a writ of error, to reverse any such "The condition of the above written obliga judgment, as may, as aforesaid, be rendered tion is such, that whereas the said Jacob and by said court in the case. Benjamin Knight have been and now are im

The justices of the peace of the County of prisoned in the prison at Portland, in the said Cumberland, on the 29th May, 1787, establishMaine District, by virtue of an execution issued ed the “proper boundaries of the jail yard in against them on a judgment obtained against the county, to be: Beginning at the bottom of them by the said United States, at the District Love Lane, at low water-mark; thence up said Court of the United States for Maine District lane, including the houses on each side thereof which was begun and holden at Portland, with to the northerly side of Back Street; thence in and for the District of_Maine, on the first down said Back Street, including the houses Tuesday of December, A. D. 1837, for the sum on both sides thereof, to King Street; from of eight thousand four hundred and sixty-two thence down said King Street, including the dollars and thirty-six cents, principal; and houses on both sides thereof, to low 303 one hundred and sixty-one dollars and seventy- water-mark; thence by low water-mark to the 302"} nine cents for interest thereon, to the first bounds, including all the ground and 19th day of December, aforesaid, and costs of buildings within the aforesaid limits." suit taxed at twenty-four dollars and forty.

Afterwards, on the 18th of October, 1798, the seven cents, and also for all legal interest that limits of the jail yard were extended to "the may accrue on said sum of eight thousand four town of Portland, exclusive of the islands;" hundred and sixty-two dollars and thirty-six and on the 10th of September, the judges of cents, from the said 19th December, until said the Court of Sessions ordered "that the bounds judgment shall be fully discharged and satis of the jail yard be extended over the whole fied, with one hundred cents more, for one county, and to the exterior limits thereof: writ of execution, and the officer's fees and which are hereby fixed and established as the charges for commitment, taxed at ninety-seven bounds of the jail yard for the said County of dollars and forty cents.

Cumberland." "Now, if the said Jacob Knight and Ben

At the October sessions of the Circuit Court, jamin Knight, from the time of executing this judgment, on the facts agreed, was given, that bond, shali continue true prisoners, in the cus. "the obligation of the bond was not broken," tody of the jailer, within the limits of the jail and the United States prosecuted this writ of yard, until they shall be lawfully discharged, error. and shall not depart without the exterior The case was argued by Mr. Gilpin, Attor.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

ney-General of the United States, for the plain privileges they renewed, also for limited peritiff in error, and by Mr. Evans for the defend- ods, in 1794 and 1796 (1 Story's Laws, 340, ants.

341); and finally made them permanent by the Mr. Gilpin, for the United States, submitted Act of 6th January, 1800. 1 Story's Laws, to the court that the obligation of the bond 715. Since then, and previous to the present given by the defendants to the United States suit, they have passed no additional act upon was broken

the subject. The law, therefore, in regard to 1. Because they were only entitled, pursu- the imprisonment of debtors of the United ant to the Act of Congress of 6th January, States is, that they are to have the same privi. 1800, to the like privileges of the yards or leges, and be subject to the same restrictions, limits of the said jail, as persons confined on while in jail, as debtors under process from the process from the courts of Maine were entitled State courts had or were subject to, on the 6th to at the time that act was passed. 1 Story's January, 1800; that then, and only then, are Laws U. S. 715.

they “truly imprisoned;" and that the jailer is 2. Because the privileges of persons confined subject to the penalties attendant on their “es. on process from the courts of Maine at the cape,” if he allows them any other privileges, time that act was passed, did not extend to the or relaxes any of those restrictions. privilege of being outside of the walls of the What, then, were the privileges and restriojail during the night time.

tions of an imprisoned debtor in Massachusstts Mr. Gilpin continued:

in 1800? They were, as declared in the act of The conditions of the bond which the defend 21st February, 1785, 1 Laws of Massachusetts, ants gave to the United States were: 1. That 221, that he might have “a chamber and lodgJacob and Benjamin Knight should continue ing in any of the houses or apartments belong. true prisoners in the custody of the jailer, ing to the prison, and liberty of the yard with. within the limits of the jail yard, until they in the day time." These were the privileges should be lawfully discharged. 2. That they of the debtors, and the restrictions upon them; should not depart without the exterior to lodge in any apartment belonging to the jail, limits of the jail yard, until lawfully dis- and to be at large within the limits of the yard charged from imprisonment according to the in the day time. To lodge elsewhere, or to be laws of the United States; and, 3. That they set at large even within the limits of the yard should commit no manner of escape. A viola- during the night, was not a “true imprison. tion of either of these conditions, by Jacob or ment,” but clearly amounted to "an escape.” Benjamin Knight, entitled the United States to The words of the law seem too plain to permit a judgment for the penalty of the bond. The a doubt as to this construction; but if there facts are, that although neither of them did de- be any, it is removed by the judicial decisions part beyond the limits of the town of Portland of the courts of Massachusetts. The rule laid exclusive of the islands, which constituted the down in the case of M'Keen v. Delancey, 5 boundaries of the jail yard, yet neither of them Cranch, 32, that the construction given by the did at any time lodge at night within the walls State courts to State statutes is to be adopted, of the jail, but both went at large within the bas been always upheld by this court. *Apboundaries during the night as well as the day. plied to the present case, it is conclusive. A The Circuit Court adjudged that this was no series of decisions *upon this statute [*305 breach of either of the conditions of the bond. has established, as an absolute restriction on

The correctness of this judgment depends the privileges of an imprisoned debtor, that he 804") upon the meaning of true imprison- must lodge in an apartment belonging to the ment,” and an "escape" therefrom. À true jail; and that he must not be absent from such imprisonment, under an execution from the lodging, or outside of the jail, at night; it has courts of the United States, is that which the established that a violation of this restriction laws of the United States prescribe, and an act is "an escape.” Bartlett v. Willis, 3 Mass. Rep. of the prisoner before his discharge, at variance 105; Clapp v. Cofran, 17 Mass. Rep. 101; therewith, is an escape. The United States, Freeman V. Davis, 7 Mass. Rep. 201; Burnot having jails in the States for the custody roughs v. Lowder, 8 Mass. Rep. 379; Trull v. of their prisoners, recommended to the State Wilson, 9 Mass. Rep. 154. legislatures, on the 23 September, 1789, (1 It is thus apparent that under the laws of Story's Laws, 70), to make it “the duty of the Massachusetts imprisoned debtor who keepers of their jails, to receive and safe keep should lodge outside of the jail, or be absent therein, all prisoners committed under the au- therefrom at night, would not "remain a true thority of the United States," until lawfully prisoner," but would "commit an escape:" and discharged; and to subject them to the same as the acts of Congress of 1789 and 1800, while penalties as in the case of prisoners committed they extend the same privileges, also impose under the State Laws. To this recommendation the same restrictions on debtors imprisoned on Massachusetts, of which Maine then consti- process from the courts of the United States, it tuted & part, acceded on the 26th February follows that Jacob and Benjamin Knight did 1790. (1 Laws of Massachusetts, 487); thus re- not "remain true prisoners” but that their acts quiring all prisoners committed under the laws amount tothe commisison of "an escape.” of the United States to be “received and safely Consequently, the condition of the bond of the kept” in the jails of Massachusetts. On the 5th defendants has been broken, and the judgment May, 1792 (1 Story's Laws, 246), Congress ex- of the court below is erroneous. tended, for a limited period, to persons so im Mr. Evans, for the defendants in error, conprisoned, "like privileges of the yards or limits tended that the condition of the bond in suit of the jails," as persons confined for debt under had not been broken: judgments of the Stato courts, but subject also "1. Because the Act of Congress of 6th to "the like regulations and restrictions." These | January, 1800, gives to persons imprisoned on


« ПретходнаНастави »