« 이전계속 »
Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cr. 57; Bank of United States v. Devaux, 5 207, 220, 221 Cr. 61; United States v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 410; Story's Const. § 1695; Curtis' Com. $ 76, 78. The doctrine is to be 450. extended to its creation and place of business. The Commercial , & Railroad Bank of Vicksburg v. Slocomb, 14 Pet. 60.
207. “BETWEEN CITIZENS OF THE SAME STATE CLAIMING What is a LANDS, UNDER GRANTS OF DIFFERENT STATES."- A grant of land grant? is a title emanating from the sovereignty of the soil.
Cases of grants made by different States are within the jurisdic- When aro lion, notwithstanding one of the States, at the time of the first grants by
different grant, was part of the other. Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cr. 292. It is the grant which passes the legal title; and if the controversy is founded upon the conflicting grants of different States, the federal courts have jurisdiction, whatever may have been the prior equitable title of the parties. Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wh. 377. Notwithstanding
One State may have originally covered the territory of both. The question is, have the grants been made by different States? Id. ; Curtis' Co.n. $ 80.
208. “CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN A STATE OR THE CITIZENS 205, 2050, THEREOF, AXD FOREIGN STATES, CITIZENS, OR SUBJECTS.”—This 211. was intended to give cognizance to the federal judiciary where the olject of foreign States,
or individual foreigners, are parties. See Chappe- this providelaide v. De Chenaux, 4 Cr. 306, 308; Brown v. Scrode, 5 Cr. 303. sion?
An Indian tribe, or nation, within the United States, is not a Is an Indian " foreign State," within the meaning of this clause. Cherokee tribe a Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1. See this case for a definition of the relations of the Cherokees, as a dependent subordinate State. The
na tion," so generally applied to them, means “a peo. ple distinct froin others." Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 619.
209. “ FOREIGN CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS.”—If the party to the What aliens record be an alien, he is within this clause, whether he sue in can sue ? his own
or as trustee, if he has a substantive interest as a trustee. Chappedelaine v. De Chenaux, 4 Cr. 306. And if the nominal plaintiff, although a citizen, sue for the use of an alien, who is the real party in interest, the case is within the jurisdic- Supposo a tion. Browne . Strode, 5 Id. 303. A foreign corporation is an alien for this purpose. Society for the Propagatiou of the Gospel sue for an
plaintiff v. Town of New Haven, 8 Wh. 464. Possibly enlarged to creation alien? and residence.
Commercial & Railroad Bauk of Vicksburg v. Slo- 206, 220, 221. comb, 14 Pet. 60; Curtis' Com. & 81. The opposite party must be a citizen, and this must appear from Is there Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136.
jurisdiction A mere declaration of intention to become a citizen, under the
parties aro naturalization laws, is not sutficient to prevent an alien from being aliens ? regardeci as a foreign subject, within the meaning of this clause.
an al ien is a stranger børn ; a person born in another or 6, 18, 98, 220. foreign country, as distinguished from a native or natural born who are citizen or subject. In English law, born out of the legiance or aliens :
Co. Litt. $ 128, 129a; 7 Co. 31; 1 Bl. Com. 366, 373; 2 Steph. Com. 426-429. American law,
Baird v. Byre, 3 Wall. Jr.
allegiance of the king.
the aliens rights to take and
one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States; ? Kent's Com. 50: Burrill's Law Dic., Aliex.
At common law an alien cannot maintain a real action or one for the rights of the recovery of real estate. (Co. Litt. 129; Shepherd's Touchstone, aliens to recover real 204; Roscoe on Real Actions, 197; Littleton, $ 198.) White v. estate! Sabariego, 23 Tex. 246.
And see Jones v. McMasters, 20 How. 8, 20, 21; Paschal's An. notated Digest, notes 147–150, 237–240 ; 1168-1170a, and the numerous cases upon the rights of aliens there cited. Laufear v. Hunly, 4 Wall. 209; McDonough v. Millandon, 3 How. 707; Semple v. Hagar, 4 Wall. 433, 434; 1 Daniel, ch. 53; Bayes v.
Hogg, 1 Hayw. 485; Orser v. Hoag, 3 Hill, 79. What are But an alien may take lands and may hold them against every
person except the king, and against the king until inquisition of
office. And if the alien be naturalized, before seizure by the gov. hold ernment, the alien's title vests absolutely, and by relation relates
back to the date of the purchase. Fairfax v. Hunter. 7 Cr. 603; Cox v. McIlvaine, 2 Cond. 86; Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259; Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. 489; Carneal v. Banks. 10 (heat. 181; Jackson v. Clarke, 3 Wheat. 1; Craig v. Leslie. 3 Wheat. 563, 589; Craig v. Radford, 3 Wheat. 594; Orr v. Hodgson, 4 Wheat. 453: Fox v. Southack, 12 Mass. 148; Jackson v. Adams. 7 Wend. 376; Jackson ex dem. Culverhouse v. Beach, 1 John's Cases, 399; S. C. 4 Johns. 75 ; Bradwell v. Weeks, 1 Johns. 206; Moore v. White, 6 Johus. Chan, 360 ; Cross v. De Valla, 1 Wall. 1:3; Osterman v. Baldwin, U. S. S. C., Dec. 7, 1867; 6 ll'all. 000. The annexation of Texas removed the alienage from citizens of the United States. Osterinan v. Baldwin, 6 Wall. 000: Cryer v. Andrews, 11 Tex. 170-183; Paschal's Annotated Digest, notes, 118, 237, 238; McKinney v. Sabariego, 18 How. 239.
The disability of the alien to maintain the real action is personal, and, at common law, relates, not to the date of acquiring the property, but of bringing the suit. 1 Chitty's Pl. 470, 471; 7 Bacon's Abridgment, Tit. USES AND Trusts, E. 2, p. 89; 1 Ill. ALIEN, D. 137; Coke Litt. 129; Id. (B. 3) p. 6; Comyn's Dig., ALIEN (C.), p. 501: Kemp v. Kennedy, 1 Pet. C. C. R. 40; affirmed 5 Cr. 173; 2 Cond. 223.
 In all cases affecting ambassadors, other pubjurisdiction
lic ministers and consuls, and those in which a State Supreme
shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original
jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, Appellate ? the Supreme Court shall bave appellate jurisdiction,
both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
What is the
210. The Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction except in the two classes of cases mentioned in the first clause. Story's Const. 1702. And to that extent it would seem to be exclusive. United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297; Marbury v. Madi. Ron, 1 Cr. 137.
"Cases" here is applied as a generic term to all the objects low is the designated by
” and “controversy” in the preceding clause. terin cases Curtis' Com. § 83.
and controversy defined. Id.; ante, n. 199; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 333; Curtis' Com. $ 124-130. If the words “ to all cases give exclusive jurisdiction in cases affecting foreign MINISTERS, they may also give exclusive jurisdiction, if such be the will of Congress, in cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United 181, 182, 202. States. (Coheps v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 392–399.) Story's Const. $ 1713.
But it does not mean that the court has jurisdiction of every Has the "Case" or question which may arise under the Constitution, laws, court jurisor treaties. These often necessarily devolve upon Congress or the
every case executive, according as the law shall direct. (Luther v. Borden, or question ? 7 How. 1.)
Curtis' Com. $ 84-85a. The word is therefore limited to such cases” as arise between parties, or are of a judicatory nature. (Madison, 5 Elliot's Debates, 483.) Iu. $ 85a, 100.
Not to all questions by which an AMBASSADOR may be affected.
* ORIGINAL JURISDICTION” is the right to take original cog- What is nizance of the
case or controversy, and to hear and determine original it in the first instance. It is that in which something is demanded jurisdiction? in the tirst instance by the institution of process, or the commencement of
a suit. Curtis' Com. § 107; Story's Const. § 1703, 1704.
The residue of the original jurisdiction remains to be vested by Where is Congress in any inferior tribunals which it may see fit to create the residue (Martin : Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 307; Osboru v. The Bank of the of the origi United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 820 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. tion? 395 ; Story's Const. § 1698.) Curtis' Com. $ 111.
Original jurisdiction, so far as the Constitution gives a rule, is What is coextensiva with the judicial power
. (Osborn v. Bank of United the extent Siates, 9 Wheat. 820.) Curtis' Com. $ 159.
And it would seem to follow that in cases where the Constitution itself has vested jurisdicoriginal jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, that investiture must tion ? operate as
exception to the general authority to Congress to vest original jurisdiction according to its discretion. Id. And there is doubt whether in such cases jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not both original and exclusive. (United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467 ; See Story's Const. § 1699; 1 Kent's
Curtis' Com. 160. But there are de
United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297; and see also Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 431, 436; Act of 28 Feb. 1839 (5 St. 32); Curtis' Com. S 161-164; Schooner Exchange v. McFaddin, 2 Cr. 117. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a cause. It is What is
judice, whenever a case is presented, which brings this jurisdic. power into action. If the petitioner states such a case in his peti. tion, that on a demurrer, the court would render judgment in his
Com. Lect. XV. p. 315.) cisions the other way.
favor, it is an undoubted case of jurisdiction. (United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 709.) Banton v. Wilson, 4 Tex. 403, 404.
It is the power to hear and determine the subject-matter in controversy between the parties to a suit; to adjudicate or to exercise judicial power over them, the question is, whether on a cause before a court, their action is judicial or extrajudicial; with or without authority of law 10 render a judgment or decree upon the rights of the litigant parties. If the law confer the power to render a judgment or decree, then the court has jurisdiction. (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 718.) Banton v. Wilson,
4 Tex. 404. Has a State A State court has no jurisdiction of a suit against a consul; and court cogni- whenever this defect of jurisdiction is suggested, the court will zance of
quash the proceeding. It is not necessary that it should be by plea before general imparlance. Mannhardt v. Soderstrom, 1 Binn. 138; Davis v. Packard. 6 Pet. 41; Commonwealth v. Kosloff, 5 S. & R. 545; Griffin v. Dominguez, 2 Duer, 656.
A consul may, however, be summoned as a garnishee in an attachment from a State court. Kidderlin v. Meyer, 2 Miles, 242. The circuit courts have no jurisdiction of a cause in which a State is a party. Gale
v. Babcock, 4 Wash. C. C. 199; S. C. Id. 344; Cohens v. Virginia, When is already cited. In those cases in which original jurisdiction is there origi- given to the Supreme Court, founded on the character of the parties, appellate
the judicial power of the United States cannot be exercised in its juristlic- appellate form. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 820. But
is a case draws in question the laws, Constitution, or treaties of 181, 182, 202. the United States, though a State be a party, the jurisdiction of
the federal courts is appellate ; for in such case the jurisdiction is founded, not upon the character of the parties, but upon the nature of the controversy. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 392 ; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 337. Congress has no power to confer original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in other cases thau those enumerated in this section." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137; In the matter of Metzger, 5 How. 176, 191-?; In re Kaine, 14 How. 119. See 1 St. 80, § 13; 1 Brightly's Dig. 861, 862, and notes.
And it seems that the original jurisdiction is exclusive. (Mar. bury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137.) Curtis' Com. $ 108; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 820, 821; Story's Const. § 16971699.
Where the character of the cause gives appellate jurisdiction, and the character of the party (as an ambassador or State) gives original jurisdiction, the appellate jurisdiction is not thereby ousted. (Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 392 et seq.; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 337.) Curtis' Com. § 109; Story's Const. & 1706-1721.
The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can only include cases enumerated in the Constitution. (Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr.
137.) What is 211. “IN ALL OTHER CASES BEFORE MENTIONED, THE SUPREME appellate COURT SHALL HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION," &c. It is the jurisdiotion ?
essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that it revises and cor. rects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not
create that cause. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 138; Curtis' Com. 459, 460. $ 110, 113.
The Supreme Court possesses no appellate power in any case, How must unless conferred upon it by act of Congress, nor can it, when con- it be conferred, be exercised in auy other mode of proceeding than that which the law prescribes. Barry v. Mercein, 5 low. 119.
The appellate powers are not given by the judicial act, but by the Constitution. They are limited and regulated by the judicial act, and by such other acts as have been passed upon the subject. Durousseau v. The United States, 6 Čr. 313. "Curtis' Com. $ 112.
Congress may prescribe the mode of exercising this appellate jurisdiction. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449; United States v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17; Ex parte Bollman,
4 Cr. 75; Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; Ex parte Crate, 5 Pet. 190 ; Story's Const. § 1755, 1756; Curtis' Com. § 113.
By the 22d section of the judiciary act, the controversy must What does be concerning a thing of money value; the judgment must be the act
require final; and the matter in controversy must exceed the sum of two thousand dollars. By the 25th section, the right to re-examine does not depend on the money value of the thing in controversy, but upon the character of the right in dispute, and the judgment which the State court has pronounced upon it; and it is altogether immaterial whether the right in controversy can or can not be measured by a money standard. (1 St. 84-86: $ 22, 25. Barry 4. Mercein, 5 How. 120. See Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall
. 401; 3 Cond. . 185; Course r. Stead, 4 Dall. 22 ; Cond. 217; United States v. Brig Union, 4 Cr. 216; 2 Cond. 91 ; Smith v. Henry, 3 Pet. 469; Gordon v. Ogden, Id. 33; Hagan v. Foison, 10 Pet. 160; Oliver v. Alexander, 6°Pet. 143 ; Scott v. Lunt, 6 Pet. 349; Wallen v. Williams. 7 Cr. 278; Fisher v. Cockrell, 5 Pet. 248; Martin 1. Hunter, i Wheat. 304; 3 Cond. 575; Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117; 6 Coud. 462.) Bank of United States v. Daniel, 12
Rector v. Ashley, U. S. C. C. Dic. T., 1867; 6 Wall. 000. To give appellate jurisdiction under the 25th section, it must appear:
First-That some one of the questions stated in the section did what gives arise
in the court below; and Secondly, that a decision was appellato actually made thereon by the same court, in the manner required uvidioby the section. (Shoemaker v. Randell, 10 Pet. 394.) McKinney v. Carroll. 1 2 How. 70.
That is, that the question was made and the decision given by the court below on the very point; or that it must have been given in order to have arrived at the judgment. Owings v. Norwood. 5 Cr. 344; Smith v. The State, 6 Cr. 281; Martin v. Hunter
, 5.Wheat. 305, 355 ; Inglee v. Coolidge, 4 Cond. 155 ; Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat. 311, 315; 4 Cond. 465; Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117. 124; 6 Cond. 462; Fisher v. Cockerill, 5 Pet. 255, 258; Wilson v. Blackbird Creek’ Marsh Company, 2 Pet. 245; Satterlee v. Mathewson, 2 Pet. 380, 410; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet.