網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Attachment of ment of the goods or estate of the defendant by the original process, goods holden to shall hold the goods or estate so attached, to answer the final judgment final judgment.

in the same manner as by the laws of such state they would have been

holden to answer final judgment, had it been rendered by the court in Title of land which the suit commenced. And if in any action commenced in a where value ex. state court, the title of land be concerned, and the parties are citizens ceeds 500 dol of the same state, and the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value lars.

of five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, the sum or value being made to appear to the satisfaction of the court, either party, before the trial, shall state to the court and make affidavit if they require it, that he claims and shall rely upon a right or title to the land, under a grant from a state other than that in which the suit is pending, and produce the original grant or an exemplification of it, except where the loss of public records shall put it out of his power, and shall move that the adverse party inform the court, whether he claims a right or title to the land under a grant from the state in which the suit is pending; the said adverse (party) shall give such information, or otherwise not be allowed to plead such grant, or give it in evidence upon the trial, and if he informs that he does claim under such grant, the party claiming under the grant first mentioned may then, on motion, remove the cause for

trial to the next circuit court to be holden in such district, or if in the If in Maine district of Maine, to the court next to be holden therein ; or if in Kenand Kentucky, tucky district, to the district court next to be holden therein; but if he

is the defendant, shall do it under the same regulations as in the beforeare removable. (Obsolete.)

mentioned case of the removal of a cause into such court by an alien; and neither party removing the cause, shall be allowed to plead or give

evidence of any other title than that by him stated as aforesaid, as the Issues in fact ground of his claim; and the trial of issues in fact in the circuit courts by jury. shall, in all suits, except those of equity, and of admiralty, and maritime

jurisdiction, be by jury.(a.) Supreme

Sec. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall court exclusive have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a jurisdiction.

state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also

between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter Proceedings

case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction. (6.) And shall against public have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ministers. ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic

servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul,

where causes

the defendant being entitled to the right to remove the cause under the law of the United States, on the facts of the case, (the judge of the State court could not legally prevent the removal;) the application for the removal having been made in proper form, it was the duty of the State court to proceed no further in the cause. Gordon v. Longest, 16' Peters, 97.

One great object in the establishment of the courts of the United States, and regulating their jurisdiction, was to have a tribunal in each State presumed to be free from local influence, and to which all who were non-residents or aliens, might resort for legal redress; and this object would be defeated if a judge in the exercise of any other than a legal discretion, may deny to the party entitled to it, a removal of his cause, Ibid.

(a) The provisions of the laws of the United States relating to juries, and trials by jury are:-Trial by jury-act of September 24, 1789, chap. 20, sec. 10, sec. 12, sec. 15.- Eremption from attending on juries-act of May 7, 1800, chap. 46, sec. 4. Choice of jurors and qualification of juries-act of Sep. iember 24, 1789, chap. 20, sec. 29; act of May 13, 1800 ; act of July 20, 1840; act of March 3, 1841, chap. 19. Expired as to juries in Pennsylvania. Special jury act of April 29, 1802, chap. 31, sec. 30. -Jury in criminal cases--act of September 24, 1789, chap. 20, sec. 29; act of April 30, 1790, chap. 9. Manner of summoning jurors-act of September 24, 1789, sec. 29; act of April 29, 1802, chap. 31. Jurymen de talibus-act of September 24, 1789, chap. 20.

(6) As to cases in which States, or alleged States, are parties, the following cases are referred to : The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 5 Peters, 1. New Jersey v. The State of New York, 5 Peters, 284. Ex parte Juan Madrazzo, 7 Peters, 627. The State of Rhode Island v. The State of Massachu? setts, 12 Peters, 651. Cohens v. The State of Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; 5 Cond. Rep. 90. New York v. Connect 4 Dall. 3. Fowler v. Lindsay et al., 3 Dall. 411.

Courts may

or vice consul, shall be a party.(a) And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court, in all actions at law against citizens of the United States, shall be by jury. The Supreme Court shall also have appellate Sup. Court jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in

appellate juris.

diction. the cases herein after specially provided for ;(b) and shall have power

Writs of Pro. to issue writs of prohibition(c) to the district courts, when proceeding as hibition. courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, (d) of Mandamus. in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. Sec. 14. And be it further enacted, That all the before-mentioned

issue writs scire courts of the United States, shall have power to issue writs of scire

facias, habeas facias, habeas corpus,(e) and all other writs not specially provided for corpus, &c. (a) The United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467; 6 Cond. Rep. 394. Davis v. Packard, 6 Peters, 41.

(6) As to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, see the cases collected in Peters's Digest, “Supreme Court," “ Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,” and the following cases: The United States v. Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 108; 2 Cond. Rep. 434. Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 144. United States v. Moore, 3 Cranch, 159; 1 Cond. Rep. 480. Owings v. Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch, 344; 2 Cond. Rep. 275. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, I'Wheat. 304; 3 Cond. Rep. 575. Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 3 Cranch, 268; 1 Cond. Rep. 524. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; 5 Cond. Rep. 225. Smith o. The State of Maryland, 6 Cranch, 286 ; 2 Cond. Rep. 377. Inglee v. Coolidge, 2 Wheat. 363; 4 Cond. Rep. 155. Nicholls et al. v. Hodges Ex’ors, 1 Peters, 562. Buel et al. v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312; 5 Cond. Rep. 445. Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat. 311; 4 Cond. Rep. 465. Matthews v. Zane et al., 7 Wheat. 164; 5 Cond. Rep. 265. M'Cluny v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598 ; 5 Cond. Rep. 197. Houston v. Moore, 3 Wheat. 433 ; 3 Cond. Rep. 286. Montgomery v. Hernandez et al., 12 Wheat. 129; 6 Cond. Rep. 475. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; 5 Cond. Rep. 90. Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448; 5 Cond. Rep. 134. Weston et al. v. The City Council of Charleston, 2 Peters, 449. Hickie v. Starke et al., 1 Peters, 94. Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Peters, 380. M'Bride v. Hoey, 11 Peters, 167.

Ross v. Barland et. al., 1 Peters, 655. The City of New Orleans v. De Armas, 9 Peters, 224. Crowell v. Randell, 10 Peters, 368. Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117; 6 Cond. Rep. 462. Menard v. Aspasia, 5 Peters, 505. Worcester v. The State of Georgia, 6 Peters, 515. The United States v. Moore, 3 Cranch, 159; I Cond. Rep. 480.

(C) Prohibition. Where the District Court of the United States has no jurisdiction of a cause brought before it, a prohibition will be issued from the Supreme Court to prevent proceedings. The United States v. Judge Peters, 3 Dall. 121; 1 Cond. Rep. 60.

(d) Mandamus. The following cases have been decided on the power of the Supreme Court to issue a mandamus. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; 1 Cond. Rep. 267. M-Cluny v. Silliman, 2 Wheat. 369; 4 Cond. Rep. 162. United States v. Lawrence, 3 Dall. 42; 1 Cond. Rep. 19. United States v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 60. Ex parte Burr, 9 Wheat. 529; 5 Cond. Rep. 660. Parker v. The Judges of the Circuit Court of Maryland, 12 Wheat. 561; 6 Cond. Rep. 614. Ex parte Roberts et al., 6 Peters, 216. Es parte Davenport, 6 Peters, 661. Ex parte Bradstrcet, 12 Peters, 174; 7 Peters, 634 ; 8 Peters, 588. Life and Fire Ins. Comp. of New York v. Wilson's heirs, 8 Peters, 291.

On a mandamus a superior court will never direct in what manner the discretion of the inferior tribunal shall be exercised; but they will, in a proper case, require an inferior court to decide. Ibid. Life and Fire Ins. Comp. of New York 0. Adams, 9 Peters, 571. Ex parte Sto:y, 12 Peters, 339. Ex parte Jesse Hoyt, collector, &c., 13 Peters, 279.

A writ of mandamus is not a proper process to correct an erroneous judgment or decree rendered in an inferior court. This is a matter which is properly examinable on a writ of error, or an appeal to a proper appellate tribunal. Ibid.

Writs of mandamus from the Circuit Courts of the United States. A Circuit Court of the United States has power to issue a mandamus to a collector, commanding him to grant a clearance. Gilchrist et al. v. Collector of Charleston, 1 Hall's Admiralty Law Journal, 429.

The power of the Circuit Court to issue the writ of mandamus is confined exclusively to those cases in which it may be necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction. MʻIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504; 2 Cond. Rep. 583.

The Circuit Courts of the United States have no power to issue writs of mandamus after the practice of the King's Bench; but only where they are necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction. Smith v. Jackson, Paine's C. C. R. 453.

(e) Habeas corpus. Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch, 448; 1 Cond. Rep. 594; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75; 2 Cond. Rep. 33.

The writ of habeas corpus does not lie to bring up a person confined in the prison bounds upon a capias ad satisfaciendum, issued in a civil suit. Ex parte Wilson, 6 Cranch, 52; 2 Cond. Rep. 300. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; 5 Cond. Rep. 225.

The power of the Supreme Court to award writs of habeas corpus is conferred expressly on the court by the 14th section of the judicial act, and has been repeatedly exercised. No doubt exists respecting the power. No law of the United States prescribes the cases in which this great writ shall be issued, nor the power of the court over the party brought up by it. The term used in the constitution is one which is well understood, and the judicial act authorizes the court, and all other courts of the United States and the judges thereof to issue the writ" for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of commit

Ex parte Tobias Watkins, 3 Peters, 201. As the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is appellate, it must be shown to the court that the court has power to award a habeas corpus, before one will be granted. Ex parte Milburn, 9 Peters, 704.

Vol: 1.-11

ment."

ch. 124.

Act of 1793; by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective cho222 ; acts jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. And act of 1818, ch. that either of the justices of the supreme court, as well as judges of the 83; act of Feh. district courts, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the May 20, 1826, purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.—Provided, That

writs of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to prisoners in gaol, unLimitation of less where they are in custody, under or by colour of the authority of writs of habeas the United States, or are committed for trial before some court of the corpus.

same, or are necessary to be brought into court to testify. Parties shall Sec. 15. And be it further enacted, That all the said courts of the produce books

United States, shall have power in the trial of actions at law, on motion and writings.

and due notice thereof being given, to require the parties to produce books or writings in their possession or power, which contain evidence pertinent to the issue, in cases and under circumstances where they might be compelled to produce the same by the ordinary rules of proceeding in chancery; and if a plaintiff shall fail to comply with such order, to produce books or writings, it shall be lawful for the courts respectively, on motion, to give the like judgment for the defendant as in cases of nonsuit; and if a defendant shall fail to comply with such order, to produce books or writings, it shall be lawful for the courts respectively on motion as aforesaid, to give judgment against him or

her by default.(a) Suits in equi.

Sec. 16. And' be it further enacted, That suits in equity shall not be ty limited.

sustained in either of the courts of the United States, in any case where plain, adequate and complete remedy may be had at law.(6)

The act of Congress authorizing the writ of habeas corpus to be issued “ for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of commitment,” applies as well to cases of commitment under civil as those of criminal process. See Chief Justice Marshall, 2 Brocken C. C. R. 447. Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 232. United States v. French, 1 Gallis's C. C. R. 2. Holmes v. Jennison, Governor of the State of Vermont, 14 Peters, 540.

(a) It is sufficient for one party to suggest that the other is in possession of a paper, which he has, under the act of Congress, given him notice to produce at the trial, without offering other proof of the fact ; and the party so called upon must discharge himself of the consequences of not producing it, by affidavit or other proof that he has it not in his power to produce it. Hylton v. Brown, 1 Wash. C. c. R. 298.

The court will not, upon a notice of the defendant to the plaintiff to produce a title paper to the land in dispute, which is merely to defeat the plaintiff's title, compel him to do so; unless the defendant first shows title to the land. Merely showing a right of possession is not sufficient to entitle him to the aid of a court of chancery, or of the Supreme Court, to compel a discovery of papers which are merely to defeat the plaintiff's title without strengthening the defendant's. It is sufficient, in order to entitle him to call for papers to show the title to the land, although none is shown in the papers. Ibid.

Where one party in a cause wishes the production of papers supposed to be in the possession of the other, he must give notice to produce them: if not produced, he may give inferior evidence of their contents. But if it is his intention to nonsuit the plaintiff, or if the plaintiff requiring the papers means to obtain a judgment by default, under the 15th section of the judicial act, he is bound to give the opposite party notice that he means to move the court for an order upon him to produce the papers, or on a failure so to do, to award a nonsuit or judgment, as the case may be. Bas v. Steele, 3 Wash. c. C. R. 381.

No advantage can be taken of the non-production of papers, unless ground is laid for presuming that the papers were, at the time notice was given, in the possession or power of the party to whom notice was given, and that they were pertinent to the issue. "In either of the cases, the party to whom notice was given may be required to prove, by his own oath, that the papers are not in his possession or power; which oath may be met by contrary proof according to the rules of equity. Ibid.

To entitle the defendant to nonsuit the plaintiff for not obtaining papers which he was noticed to produce, the defendant must first obtain an order of the court, under a rule that they should be produced. But this order need not be absolute when moved for, but may be nisi, unless cause be shown at the trial. Dunham v. Riley, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 126.

Notice to the opposite party to produce on the trial all letters in his possession, relating to monies received by him under the award of the commissioners under the Florida treaty, is sufficiently specific as they described their subject matter. If to such notice the party answer on oath that he has not a particular letter in his possession, and after diligent search could find none such, it is sufficient to prevent the offering of secondary proof of its contents. The party cannot be asked or compelled to answer whether he ever had such a letter in his possession. Vasse v. Mifflin, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 519.

(6) The equity jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is independent of the local law of any State, and is the same in nature and extent as the equity jurisdiction of England from which it is derived. Therefore it is no objection to this jurisdiction, that there is a remedy under the local law. Gordon v. Hobart, 2 Sumner's C. C. R. 401.

If a case is cognizable at common law, the defendant has a right of trial by jury, and a suit upon it cannot be sustained in equity. Baker v. Biddle, 1 Baldwin's C. C. R. 405.

unless

Sec. 17. And be it further enacted, That all the said courts of the

Courts may United States shall have power to grant new trials, in cases where there grant new trials. has been a trial by jury for reasons for which new trials have usually been granted in the courts of law;(a) and shall have power to impose and administer all necessary oaths or affirmations, and to punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of said courts, all contempts of Act of March authority in any cause or hearing before the same ;(6) and to make and 2, 1831, ch. 99. establish all necessary rules for the orderly conducting business in the said courts, provided such rules are not repugnant to the laws of the United States.

Sec. 18. And be it further enacted, That when in a circuit court, Execution judgment upon a verdict in a civil action shall be entered, execution may be stayed may on motion of either party, at the discretion of the court, and on

on conditions. such conditions for the security of the adverse party as they may judge proper, be stayed forty-two days from the time of entering judgment, to give time to file in the clerk's office of said court, a petition for a new trial. And if such petition be there filed within said term of forty-two days, with a certificate thereon from either of the judges of such court, that he allows the same to be filed, which certificate he may make or refuse at his discretion, execution shall of course be further stayed to the next session of said court.(c) And if a new trial be granted, the former judgment shall be thereby rendered void.

Sec. 19. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of circuit Facts to appear courts, in causes in equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to

on record. cause the facts on which they found their sentence or decree, fully to

Altered by act appear upon the record either from the pleadings and decree itself, or a of March 3, state of the case agreed by the parties, or their counsel, or if they disa- 1803, chap. 40. gree by a stating of the case by the court. Sec. 20. And be it further enacted, That where in a circuit court, a

Costs not ai.

lowed plaintiff in an action, originally brought there, or a petitioner in equity, 500 dollars reother than the United States, recovers less than the sum or value of five covered. hundred dollars, or a libellant, upon his own appeal, less than the sum or value of three hundred dollars, he shall not be allowed, but at the discretion of the court, may be adjudged to pay costs.

Sec. 21. And be it further enacted, That from final decrees in a dis- 1. Appeals from trict court in causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, where the the circuit court matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of three hundred dollars, where maiter exclusive of costs, an appeal shall be allowed to the next circuit court, ceeds 300 dolls.

There cannot be concurrent jurisdiction at law and equity, where the right and remedy are the same; but equity may proceed in aid of the remedy at law, hy incidental and auxiliary relief; if the remedy at law is complete. Its jurisdiction is special, limited and defined ; not as in England, where it depends on

The 16th section of the judiciary law is a declaratory act settling the law as to cases of equity jurisdiction, in the nature of a proviso, limitation or exception to its exercise. If the plaintiff have a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law, the case is not a suit in equity, under the constitution, or the judiciary act. Ibid.

Though the rules and principles established in English Chancery at the revolution, are adopted in the federal courts, the changes introduced there since, are not followed here; especially in matters of jurisdiction, as to which the 16th section of the act of 1789 is imperative. Ibid.

(a) New trials. Calder v. Bull and Wife, 3 Dall. 386; 1 Cond. Rep. 172. Arnold v. Jones, Bee's Rep. 104.

(6) Contempt of court. The courts of the United States have no common law jurisdiction of crimes against the United States. But independent of statutes, the courts of the United States have power to fine for contempts, and imprison for contumacy, and to enforce obedience to their orders, &c. The United States v. Hudson et al., 7 Cranch, 32; 2 Cond. Rep. 405.

By an act passed March 2, 1831, chap. 99, it is enacted, that the power of the courts of the United States to punish for contempts shall not extend to any cases, except to misbehaviour in the presence of the court, or so near to the court as to obstruct the administration of justice, or the misbehaviour of the officers of the court in their official transactions, and disobedience or resistance by any officer of the court, party, juror, witness or any person to any writ, process, order or decree of the court. Indictments may be presented against persons impeding the proceedings of the court, &c. See the statute.

(c) Execution. The 14th section of the Judiciary act of September 24, 1789, chap. 20, authorizes the courts of the United States to issue writs of execution upon judgments which have been rendered. This section provides only for the issuing of the writ, and directs no mode of proceeding by the officer obeying its command. Bank of the United States v. Halstead, 10 Whcat. 51; 6 Cond. Rep. 22.

usage. Ibid.

Altered by the to be held in such district. Provided nevertheless, That all such appeals 2d section of the from final decrees as aforesaid, from the district court of Maine, shall 1803, chap. 40. be made to the circuit court, next to be holden after each appeal in the

[Obsolete.) district of Massachusetts.

Final decrees Sec. 22. And be it further enacted, That final decrees and judgre-examined above 50 dol. ments in civil actions in a district court, where the matter in dispute lars.

exceeds the sum or value of fifty dollars, exclusive of costs, may be reAltered by the examined, and reversed or affirmed in a circuit court, holden in the act of March 3, same district, upon a writ of error, whereto shall be annexed and re1803, chap. 40. turned therewith at the day and place therein mentioned, an authenti

cated transcript of the record, an assignment of errors, and prayer for reversal, with a citation to the adverse party, signed by the judge of

such district court, or a justice of the Supreme Court, the adverse party And suits in having at least twenty days' notice.(a) And upon a like process, may final ing 2000 dollars judgments and decrees in civil actions, and suits in equity in a circuit in value.

court, brought there by original process, or removed there from courts of the several States, or removed there by appeal from a district court where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of two thousand dollars, exclusive of costs, be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court, the citation being in such case signed by a judge of such circuit court, or justice of the Supreme Court, and the adverse

party having at least thirty days' notice.(0) But there shall be no rever(a) The rules, regulations and restrictions contained in the 21st and 22d sections of the judiciary act of 1789, respecting the time within which a writ of error shall be brought, and in what instances it shall operate as a supersedeas, the citation to the opposite party, the security to be given by the plaintiff in error, and the restrictions on the appellate court as to reversals in certain enumerated cases, are applicable to the act of 1803, and are to be substantially observed ; except that where the appeal is prayed for at the same time when the decree or sentence is pronounced, a citation is not necessary. The San Pedro, 2 Wheat. 132; 4 Cond. Rep. 65.

By the 2d section of the act of March 3, 1803, chap. 40, appeals are allowed from all final judgments or decrees in any of the District courts, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the sum or value of fifty dollars. Appeals from the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court are allowed when the sum or value, exclusive of costs exceeds $2000. This section repeals so much of the 19th and 20th sections of the act of 1789, as comes within the purview of those provisions.

By the provisions of the act of April 2, 1816, chap. 39, appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, are allowed when the matter in dispute in the cause exceeds $1000, exclusive of costs.

(b) The following cases have been decided on the questions which have arisen as to the value in controversy, in a case removed by writ of error or appeal.

The verdict and judgment do not ascertain the matter in dispute between the parties. To determine this, recurrence must be had to the original controversy; to the matter in dispute when the action was instituted. Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401; 1 Cond. Rep. 185.

Where the value of the matter in disputé did not appear in the record, in a case brought by writ of error, the court allowed affidavits to be taken to prove the same, on notice to the opposite party. The writ of error not to be a supersedeas. Course v. Stead's Ex’ors, 4 Dall. 22; 1 Cond. Rep. 217; 4 Dall. 20; 1 Cond. Rep. 215.

The Supreme Court will permit viva voce testimony to be given of the value of the matter in dispute, in a case brought up by a writ of error or by appeal. The United States v. The Brig Union et al., 4 Cranch, 216; 2 Cond. Rep. 91.

The plaintiff below claimed more than $2000 in his declaration, but obtained a verdict for a less sum. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court depends on the sum or value in dispute between the parties, as the case stands on the writ of error in the Supreme Court; not on that which was in dispute in the Circuit Court. If the writ of error be brought by the plaintiff below, then the sum the declaration shows to be due may still be recovered, should the judgment for a smaller sum be reversed ; and consequently the whole sum claimed is in dispute. Smith v. Honey, 3 Peters, 469; Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Peters, 33.

In cases where the demand is not for money, and the nature of the action does not require the value of the thing to be stated in the declaration, the practice of the courts of the United States has been to allow the value to be given in evidence. Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Peters, 634.

The onus probandi of the amount in controversy, to establish the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a case brought before it by writ of error, is upon the party seeking to obtain the revision of the case. He may prove that the value exceeds $2000, exclusive of costs. Hagan v. Foison, 10 Peters, 160.

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in a case in which separate decrees have been entered in the Circuit Court for the wages of seamen, the decree in no one case amounting to $2000, although the amount of the several decrees exceed that sum, and the seamen in each case claimed under the same contract. Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Peters, 143. See Scott v. Lunt's Adm’rs, 6 Peters, 349.

The Supreme Court will not compel the hearing of a cause unless the citation be served thirty days be. fore the first day of the term. Welsh v. Mandeville, 5 Cranch, 321 ; 2 Cond. Rep. 268.

A citation must accompany the writ of error. Lloyd r. Alexander, 1 Cranch, 365; 1 Cond. Rep. 334. When an appeal is prayed during the session of the court, a citation to the appellee is not necessary. Riley, appellant, v. Lamar et al., 2 Cranch, 344; 1 Cond. Rep. 419.

« 上一頁繼續 »