페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Ilow far The Admiralty clause embraces what was known and underdoes the

stood in the United States, as the admiralty and maritime juris. jurisdiction extend:

diction, at the time when the Constitution was adopied. Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 413; New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 Id. 244; Waring v. Clark. 8 Id. 411; Tunno v. The Betsina, 5 Am. L. R , 409: The Huntress, Davies, 83. And also extends the power so as to cover every expansion

of jurisdiction. Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 458. Why was The word “ maritime” was added to guard against any narrow inaritime

interpretation of the preceding word "admiralty." Story's Const. 11 sed!

3 1666. In Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 561-569, Mr. Jus:ice Miller reviewed the steamboat Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wh. 428; The steamboat Orleans, 11 Pet. 175; Warring ~ Clark, 8 How. 441; The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 457 (which overruled the first two); Fritz v. Bull. 12 How; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; The statute of 1845, 5 St. 726; of 1789, 1 St. 77, and deduced the fol.

lowing rules :What was 1. The admiralts jurisdiction is not limited to tide water, but the extent and division

covers the entire navigable waters of the United States ; 2. The of admiralty original jurisdiction in admiralty, exercised by the district courts, jurisdic- by virtue of the act of 1789, is exclusive, not only of the federal tion ?

courts, but of the State courts also; 3. The jurisdiction of admiralty causes arising on the interior waters of the United States, other than the lakes and their connecting waters, is conferred by the Act of September 24th, 1789; 4. The admiralty jurisdiction exercised by the same courts, on the lakes, and the waters connectiug those lakes, is governed by the Act of 3d February, 1815; 5. The Acts of the State legislatures, which virtually give admiraity remedies on the navigable rivers, are unconstitutional and void. 4 Wall. 569.

Since the case of the Genesee Chief (12 How. 457), navigable waters may be substituted for tide-waters. The Plymouth, 3

Wall, 31. Enumerate The jurisdiction of the admiralty courts in this cou:try, at the some of the time of the Revolution, and for a century before, was more exten. cases ?

sive than the high court of admiralty in England. Paschal's An. notated Digest, note 89; The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 455. This jurisdiction extends to the navigable lakes and rivers of the United States, without regard to the ebb and flow of the tides of the ocean.

Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443. It embraces all maritime contracts, wheresoever the same may be made or executed, and whatever may be the form of the stipulations; and also all torts and injuries committed upon waters within its jurisdiction. De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398 ; Gloucester Ins. Co. v. Younger, 2 Curt. C. C. 322; Philadelphia & Havre de Grace Tow. boat Co. v. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad Co. 5 Am. L. R. 280. All crimes and offenses against the laws of the United States. Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371: Unite. States v. Bevans, 3 Wh. 336. And all cases of seizures for breaches of the revenue laws, and those made in the exercise of the rights of war. The Vengeance. 3 Dall. 297; The Sally, 2 (1. 406; The New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants' Bunk, 6 How. 344. Another class of cases, in which jurisdictiou has always been exercised by the admiralty courts in this country, but Increase of which is denied in England, are suits by ship.carpenters and jurisdiction. material-men, for repairs and necessaries made and furnished to ships, whether foreign, or in the port of a State to which they do not belong, or in the home port, if the municipal laws give a lien for the work and materials. Gardner v. The New Jersey, 1 Pet. Adm. 2:27; Stevens v. The Sandwich, Id. 233, n.; Zane v. The Brig President, 4 Wash. C. C. 453 ; The Ship Robert Fulton, 1 Paine, 620; Davis v. A New Brig, Gilp. 473 ; The General Smith, 4 Wh. 438; Wick v. The Samuel Strong, 6 McLean, 590; Curtis' Com. S 36–52.

The jurisdiction extends to the seizure of cotton upon rivers in 117, 118. the states in rebellion. Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 419. But cotton seized upon land could not be the subject of lawful prize, although it was subject to capture, notwithstanding it was private property. Id.

204. “CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE Where is A PARTY."— 1. The jurisdiction is not conferred upon any particular the juriscourt; Congress must therefore designate the tribunal; 2. Cogni- when the zance is not given of all controversies, but only of some; 3. “Con- United troversies

to embrace only civil suits. Cohens v. Vir- States is a ginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 411, 412; Story's Const. § 1074–1681; Curtis' party? Com. $ 56, 57.

The United States can only be sued in cases where it has con- When can sented to be sued by act of Congress. Curtis' Com. $ 57; Story's

the United

States be Const. § 1677, 1678. As in suits for the confirmation of land

sued ? grants and in the Court of Claims. Curtis' Com. $ 100-102.

A suit against the President to prevent the enforcement of the reconstruction laws, was held to be a suit against the executive of the United States, and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 498. Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 000.

seem

205. “To CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN TWO OR MORE STATES." - This means States of the Union.

This clause about guits between States, includes a suit brought What may by one State against another, to determine a question of disputed be included boundary. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657; Alabama by a Stato v. Georgia, 23 How. 510. And only applies to those States that Stute ? are members of the Union, and to public bodies owing obedience s. 9, 223and conforunits to its Constitution and laws. Scott v. Jones, 5 228. How. 377. And a State is within the operation of this clause only 447. when it is a party to the record, as a plaintiff or defendant, is its political capacity. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738; 1 Curtis' Com. S 59, 63. The Cherokee nation is not a State, within the meaning of the Constitution, either foreign or domestic--nor had it the right to sue Georgia before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. I, 1620.

As early as 1792, this court exercised original jurisdiction, with. out any further legislation than the act of 1789. (Brailsford v. Georgia, 2 Dall 402, 415; Oswald v. Georgia. Dall.; Chisholm 1. Geargia, 2 Dall. 419, 478; New Jersey y. New York, 5 Pot.

should the

Upon whom 284; Grayson v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 320.) These cases settlo

that the process should be served upon the chief executive and process be served ?

attorney-general of the State. Kentucky v. Ohio, 24 How. 96-7. Where the governor sues or is sued, in his official capacity, it is a suit by or against the State. Id. 97, 99; Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo. 1 Pet. 110. A mandamus is an ordinary process to which a Stato is entitled, where it is applicable. (Kendall r. The Unitod States, 12 Pet. 615; Kendall v. Stokes, 3 How. 100.) Ken. tucky v. Ohio, 24 How. 97-8.

For the necessity of this jurisdiction, seo Federalist, No. 80; Kent's Com. Lect. 13; Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 437–445; Sergeent's Const. Introduction, 11-16; New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 3; Fowler v. Lindsay, 3 Dall. 411; 3 Elliot's Debates, 281; 2 Elliot's Debates. 418; Penn v. Lord Baltimore, '1 Vesey, 444; Story's Const. S 80, 489, 1679-1681; 1 Chalm. Annals, 480-490.

The jurisdiction is a necessity to prevent a resort to the sword. Story's Const. § 1681. See Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 306; Curtis' Com. 60-70.

A State obtained an injunction to prevent the construction of a bridge wbich would impede the navigation of the Ohio River.

Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co. 13 How. 518. 271, 272. The 11th article of the amendments has forbidden suits by indi

vidual citizens against the States.

If the judicial power does not extend to all controversies between States, it excludes none. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657; Curtis' Com. $ 60.

Its mere interest in a corporation will not oust the jurisdiction, U. S. Bank v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904, 966 ; Curtis' Com. $ 66. See also Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Wistar, 2 Pet. 318.

It seems the court will look into the interest of the State, where it claims to be a party. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge Co. 13 How. 518, 539; Curtis' Com. § 70.

Can 3

State ?

205, 203. 2054. " BETWEEN A STATE AND THE CITIZENS OF ANOTHER 211, 271, STATE."-—Before the eleventh amendment (1793), it was held, that 272.

this authorized suits to be brought against, as well as by States, 448, 449. where the plaintiff was a citizen of another State. Chisholm F. Georgia, 2 Dall

. 419-478; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 406; Curtis' Com. $ 60.

But this power of a citizen to sue a State is removed by the citizen sue a eleventh amendment. For the history and object of the amend. 271, 272.

ment, see Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 406 et seq.: Curtis' Com. $ 62. But where a State recovers a judgment against a citizen a

writ of error will still lie. Id ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 409. When is a A State is within the operation of this original clause of the State within Constitution, only when it is a party to the record, as plaintiff or

defendant, in its political capacity. Oshorn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738; Curtis' Com. 8 63–65. New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 3; Story's Const. § 1680, 1681.

Where a State is a party to the record, the question of jurisdiction is decided by inspection. Id.

The State is only a party when it is on the record as such.

the rule ?

271.

(Fowler v. Lindsay, 3 Dall. 411, 415; S. C. 1 Pet. Com. 190, 191 ; Cases.
New York Y. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 1-6; United States v. Peters, 5
Cr. 115, 139; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 15, p. 302.) Story's Const.

$ 1685.

[ocr errors]

State?

93, 169, 220

mines the

[ocr errors]

courts.

206. “ CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT States.” Contro- CONTROVERSIES is synonymous with civil suits. Curtis' versies?

199-201. Com. $. 73.

It may be deduced: 1. That they are all citizens of who are the United States, who are domiciliated in a state ; (Scott v. Sand- citizens of a ford, 19 How. 393.) 2. And they are suits where one party is a citizen of one State, and the other a citizen of another. Curtis 7 18., 25., Co:n. $ 73. The situation of the parties, rather than their char- 2:22. acters determines the jurisdiction. Id.

At the commencement of What deterthe suit. Connoly v. Taylor, 2 Peters, 556, 564.

jurisdiction? This clause does not embrace cases where one of the parties is What does a citizen of a territory, or of the District of Columbia. Hartshorn citizenship P. Wright, Peters c. C. 6+; Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 377; Hepburn 6, 18. 03. v. Elszey, 2 Cr. 445 ; Corporation of New Orleans v. Winter. 1170, 220. Wh. 91; Gassies v. Ballou, 6 Pet. 761; 1 Keut's Com. Lect. 17, p. 274. 360; Story's Coust. § 1693, 1694; Curtis' Com. $ 77. Citizenship

, when spoken of in the Constitution, in reference to the jurisdiction of the

federal courts, means nothing more than residence. Lessee of Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash. C. C. 546; Gassies 450, 451. v. Ballou, 6

Pet. 761; Shelton v. Tiffiu, 6 How. 163; Lessee
of Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Wash. C. C. 101. But a free negro
of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country
and sold as sla ves, is not a citizen within the meaning of the
Constitution, nor entitled to sue in that character in the federal 274.
Scott

V. Sandford, 19 How. 393-4. But see the Civil
Rights Bill

, note 6, p. 55; 14 St. p. 27, § 1; Paschal's Annotated
Digest

, Art. 5382.' A corporation created by, and transacting busi-
bess in it State, is to be deemed an inhabitant of the State, capable
of being treated as a citizen, for all purposes of suing and being
sued. Louisville R. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497; Marshall v.
Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. 16 Id. 314; Wheeden v. Camden &
Amboy R. R. Co. 4 Am. L. R. 296. The judiciary act contines the
jurisdiction, on the ground of citizenship, to cases where the suit
is between a citizen of a State and a citizen of another State; and,
although the Constitution gives a broader extent to the judicial
power, the actual jurisdiction of the circuit courts is governed by
the act of Congress. Moffat v. Soley, 2 Paine, 103 ; Hubbard v.
Northeru R. R. Co. 25 Vt. 715. So, too, in the same act, there
is au exception, that where suit is brought in favor of an assignee,
there shall be no jurisdiction, unless suit could have been brought
in the courts of the United States, had do assignment been made.
This is a restriction on the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution;
and yet thuis provision has been sustained by the Supreme Court
Lean, 122 ; Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441. The Constitution has de-
Since its, organization. Assignee of Brainard v. Williams, 4 Mc-
fined the Limits of the judicial power, but has not prescribed how
much of it shall be exercised by the circuit courts.

Turner v.
Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 10; McIntyre v. Wood, 7 Cr. 506;
Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 616; Cary v. Curtis 3 How. 245.

222

[graphic]

the extent

Only a por. It is well understood by those experienced in the jurisprudence of tion.

the United States, that Congress has conferred upou the federal courts but a portion of the jurisdiction contemplates by the Constitution. Clarke v. City of Janesville, 4 Am. L. R. 593. Tho plaintiffs should distinctly aver that they are citizens of different States; and in the absence of such averment, the judgment will be reversed for want of jurisdiction. (Biugham v. Cabott, 3 Dall. 382; Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cr. 126; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cr. 46.) Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 420. Curtis' Com. S 79. note 4. But if the citizenship be denied, it should be by plea in abatement, or it should otherwise appear in the record. Id. See 1 Brightly's Dig. p. 126. sec. 17, and notes thereon. The Constitution of the Confederate States omitted this jurisdiction. Paschal's Annotated Dig. p. 92. In other respects it

corresponded to this section and the eleventh amendment. Id. How must The citizenship must be expressly averred, or the facts which the citizen- constitute it must be set forth. (Turner v. Bank of North America, ship be

4 Dall. 8; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cr. 46; Bailey v. Dozier, 6 How. averred ?

23.) Curtis' Com. $ 78.

See the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, 1 St. 78; 1 Bright.

ly's Digest, p. 126 and notes. What is The Judiciary Act of 1789 limited jurisdiction of national courts

so far as they are determined by citizenship," to suits between of the jurisdic

a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought and a citizen of tion !

another State," and except in relation to revenue cases this limi. tation remains unchanged. Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 512. In consequence of nullification the jurisdiction was extended to "all cases in law or equity arising under the revenue laws of the United States for which other provisions have not already been made.” (4 Stat. 632.) Id. And by this act many suits brought in the State courts were removed into the circuit courts (Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137; Bend v. Hoyt, 13 Pet. 267); Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 542. The fiftieth section of the Internal Revenue Act of 1854 extended the act of 1833 to all cases arising under the laws for the collection of internal duties. (12 Stat. 241.) Id. But the act of 1866 repealed the fiftieth section aforesaid, without any saving of such causes as were then pending, and said that "the act of 1833 shall not be so construed as to apply to cases arising under act of 1864,"' &c. This ousted jurisdiction in the causes then pendiug. Id. When the jurisdiction of a cause depends upon a statute, the repeal of which takes away the jurisdiction, or it is prohibited by a subsequent statute, it can no longer be exer. cised. (Rex v. Justices of London, 3 Burrow, 1456; Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 229.) Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 544. But where the case would be removable under the new provision, and it is the opinion of the circuit judge that it ought to be retained, the jurisdiction is not lost. City of Philadelphia v. Collector, 4 Wall. 720-30.

As respects the proof of the residence or domiciliation to consti

tute citizenship, see Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 163, 185 Can a corpo ration bo &

A corporation, whose members are citizens of a difforent State citizen! from the other party, is a citizen of a different State. Hope Ins

« 이전계속 »