« ПретходнаНастави »
EFFECT OF REMOVAL OR REMAND.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
§ 1. Judicial powers, where vested.
Power of Cougress. § 2 a.
United States Courts. § 3. Jurisdiction as to subject matter and parties. § 3 a. Where the government is a party. § 3 b. Where an alien is a party. § 3 c. State legislation cannot limit or impair. § 3 d. Jurisdiction generally. $ 3 e. Limitation of jurisdiction. § 3 f. Territorial limit of jurisdiction. $ 4. Exclusive jurisdiction of courts of the United States. § 4 a. Criminal jurisdiction. § 4 b. Extent of criminal jurisdiction. § 4 c. Admiralty jurisdiction. $5. Suits for punishment of officers and owners of vessels for negli
To enjoin comptroller of currency or receiver.
§ 13. $ 14 § 15. $ 16.
§ 17. § 13. $ 19.
20. $ 21.
Suits arising under provisions of revenue law.
ties of citizens.
$ 23. $ 24. § 25. § 26.
§ 1. Judicial power, where vested.The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time establish. (U. S. Const. art. 3, sec. 1.)
§ 1 a. Constitutional provisions.-Judicial power means that power with which courts are clothed for the purpose of the trial and determination of causes; the power conferred to render a judgment or decree. The jurisdiction of the circuit courts depends exclusively on the Constitution and laws of the United States;} and it cannot be affected by State legislation. Its jurisdiction is limited; but the presumption is, that a cause is within the jurisdiction till the contrary is shown. The judicial power is unavoidably in some cases exclusive of al State authority, and in others may be made so at the election of the legislative body. 6 “Shall extend” is used in article 3, section 2 of the Federal Constitution, in an imperative sense, and imports an absolutegrant of power. Their jurisdiction depends exclusively on the Constitution, and statutes passed in pursuance thereof.8 The Constitution defines the limits of the judicial power, but Congress prescribes how much of it is to be exercised by the Federal courts.9. They are of limited jurisdiction, and can exercise no jurisdiction
but what is expressly conferred, or is conferred by necessary implication, as the power to punish for contempts. 11 Although of inferior jurisdiction in the language of the Constitution, their proceedings are entitled to liberal presumptions in favor of their regularity. 12 An inferior court, in the sense of the Constitution, is one whose judgment may be reversed on appeal. 13 Federal courts will decline jurisdiction, as a matter of comity, where the State court has custody of the property and the subject matter of the action, but not after trial on the merits. 14
The judicial power of the United States is vested by the Constitution in the courts of the United States. 15 Congress, in establishing “inferior courts,” and prescribing their jurisdiction, must confer upon the judges appointed to administer them the constitutional tenure of office—that of holding “during good behavior”_before they can become invested with any portion of the judicial power of the government. 16 It is within the power of the gov. ernment of the United States to protect the lives of the judges of its courts from assault, not only while actually holding court, but while traveling ugh their circuits for that purpose.!?
1 U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Peters, 691; Ex parte Gist, 26 Ala. 156; Banton v. Wilson, 4 Texas, 400.
2 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Peters 57.
3 Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236; Sheldon v. Sili, 8 How. 441; Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393; Hubbard v. Northern R. R. Co., 3 Blatchf. 84; Bennett V. Bennett, Deady, 300; Wisconsin v. Duluth, 2 Dill, 406; Karahoo v. Adams, 1 Dill. 314; Harrison v. Hadley, 2 Dill. 229; Smith v. Allyn, 1 Paine, 486; Livingston v. Van Ingen, 1 Paine, 45; U. S. v. Terrell, Hemp. 411, 422; U. S. v. Alberty, Hemp. 444; White v. Fenner, 1 Mason, 520; Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. C. C. 232; Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock. 203.
4 Parsons v. Lyman, 5 Blatchf. 170; Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock. 203.
5 Turner v. Bank, 4 Dall. 8; Livingston v. Van Ingen, 1 Paine, 45. 6 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 201; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411. 7 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304.
8 Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch, 303; Blank v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61; Amer. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Peters, 511; Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock. 203; U. S. v. Drennon, Hemp. 320; U. S. v. Alberty, Hemp. 444.
9 Turner v. Bank of N. A., 4 Dall. 410; McIntyre v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504; Kendall v. U. 8., 12 Peters, 616; Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 215; Clarke v. Jonesville, 4 Am. Law. Reg. 593.
10 Turner v. Bank, 4 Dall. 9; U. S. v. Ta-wan-ga-ca, Hemp. 304. 11 U. S. v. Hudson, 7 Cranch, 32: Matt. of Meador, 1 Abb. U. S. 324.
12 Turner v. Bank, 4 Dall. 8; Griswold v. Sedgwick, 1 Wend. 126; Byers v. Fowler, 12 Ark. 218; Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172.
13 Nugent v. State, 18 Ala. 52. 1! Gilman v. Perkins, 13 The Reporter, 257. 15 Thomas v. Loney, 134 U. S. 372. 16 Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 2 Interstate Com. Rep. 351.
17 Re Neagle, 39 Fed. Rep. 833; 40 Alb. L. J. 284; 12 N. J. L. J. 309.
$ 1 b. Limitation of judicial power.—The judicial power of the United States is limited to “cases” and * controversies” enumerated in article 3 of the Constitution, as limited by amendment, article 11, and includes only suits of a civil nature. The eleventh article of amendment simply declares that “the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit, in law or in equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.” 2 Whenever the claim of a party takes such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting upon it, then it has become a case of controversy within the meaning of the article of the Constitution defining the limits of the judicial power of the United States. The Constitution of the United States, as originally established, ordains, in article 3, section 2, that the judicial power of the United States shall extend “to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State, between citi. zens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects"; and that in all cases “ in which a State shall be party,” this court shall have original jurisdiction. As to “ controversies between two or more States,” the most numerous class of which this court has entertained jurisdiction is that of controversies between two States as to the boundaries of their territory, such as were determined before the Revolution by the king in council, and under the Articles of Confederation by committees or commissioners appointed by Congress. The Constitution in terms excludes no controversies between States, whatever may be their nature or subject. It is therefore a question of construction whether the contro