Co. v. Boardman. 5 Cr. 57; Bank of United States v. Devaux, 5 207, 220, 221 , & 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 are tion, 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. States? 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' Con. § 80. What was 208. "CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN A STATE OR THE CITIZENS 205, 205a, THEREOF, AND FOREIGN STATES, CITIZENS, OR SUBJECTS."-This 211. was intended to give cognizance to the federal judiciary where the object of foreign States, or individual foreigners, are parties. See Chappe- this providelaine v. De Chenaux, 4 Cr. 306, 308; Brown v. Strode, 5 Cr. 303, sion? 66 foreign 91. 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 State? relations of the Cherokees, as a dependent subordinate State. The very term "nation," so generally applied to them, means a people distinct from 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 right, 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- Suppose a tion. Browne v. Strode, 5 Id. 303. nominal A foreign corporation is an alien for this purpose. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel sue for an plaintiff v. Town of New Haven, 8 Wh. 464. Possibly enlarged to creation alien? and residence. Commercial & Railroad Bank 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 the record. Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136. jurisdiction where both parties aro A mere declaration of intention to become a citizen, under the naturalization laws, is not sufficient to prevent an alien from being aliens? regarded as a foreign subject, within the meaning of this clause. Baird v. Byre, 3 Wall. Jr. An alien is a stranger born; 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? allegiance of the king. Co. Litt. § 128, 129a; 7 Co. 31; 1 Bl. Com. 366, 373; 2 Steph. Com. 426-429. In American law, 274. What are one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States; 2 Kent's Com. 50: Burrill's Law Dic., ALIEN. 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, 204; Roscoe on Real Actions, 197; Littleton, § 198.) White v. Sabariego, 23 Tex. 246. aliens to recover real estate? What are the aliens' rights to take and hold? What is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? And see Jones v. McMasters, 20 How. 8, 20, 21; Paschal's Annotated 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. 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 government, 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 Wheat. 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 Johus. 75; Bradwell v. Weeks, 1 Johns. 206; Moore v. White, 6 Johns. Chan. 360; Cross v. De Valla, 1 Wall. 13; Osterman v. Baldwin, U. S. S. C., Dec. 7, 1867; 6 Wall. 000. The annexation of Texas removed the alienage from citizens of the United States. Osterman v. Baldwin, 6 Wall. 000: Cryer v. Andrews, 11 Tex. 170-183; Paschal's Annotated Digest, notes, 148, 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 Id. ALIEN, D. 137; Coke Litt. 129; Id. (B. 3) p. 6: Comyn's Dig., ALIEN (C.), p. 301; Kemp v. Kennedy, 1 Pet. C. C. R. 40; affirmed 5 Cr. 173; 2 Cond. 223. [2] In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original. jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, Appellate the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. 456-460. 457. 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. Madison, 1 Cr. 137. applied? "CASES" here is applied as a generic term to all the objects How is the designated by "case and controversy" in the preceding clause. term cases Curtis' Com. § 83. See case" and "controversy" defined. 199-201. 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. (Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 392-399.) Story's Const. $1713. diction of every case 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 executive, according as the law shall direct. (Luther v. Borden, or question? 7 How. 1.) Curtis' Com. § 84-85a. The word is therefore 195. limited to such "cases" as arise between parties, or are of a judicatory nature. (Madison, 5 Elliot's Debates, 483.) Id. § 85a, 100. Not to all questions by which an AMBASSADOR may be affected. Id. See Stanbery's arguments in the Mississippi and Georgia Injunction cases, against the President and others, reported in 4 Wallace. See the United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40. 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 first 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 v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 307; Osboru v. The Bank of the of the original jurisdicUnited States, 9 Wheat. 738, 820; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. tion? 395; Story's Const. § 1698.) Curtis' Com. § 111. of the Original jurisdiction, so far as the Constitution gives a rule, is What is coextensive with the judicial power. (Osborn v. Bank of United the extent States. 9 Wheat. 820.) Curtis' Com. § 159. And it would seem original to follow that in cases where the Constitution itself has vested jurisdicoriginal jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, that investiture must tion? operate as an 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 Com. Lect. XV. p. 315.) Curtis' Com. 160. But there are decisions the other way. 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. § 161-164; Schooner Exchange v. McFaddin, 2 Cr. 117. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a cause. It is What is coram judice, whenever a case is presented, which brings this jurisdicpower into action. If the petitioner states such a case in his peti. tion, that on a demurrer, the court would render judgment in his tion? 195 458. Has a State zance of consuls? When is 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 to 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. 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 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, already cited. In those cases in which original jurisdiction is given to the Supreme Court, founded on the character of the parties, the judicial power of the United States cannot be exercised in its appellate form. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 820. But if a case draws in question the laws, Constitution, or treaties of 161, 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 than those enumerated in this section. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137; In the matter of Metzger, 5 How. 176. 191-2; In re Kaine, 14 How. 119. See 1 St. 80, § 13; 1 Brightly's Dig. 861, 862, and notes. there original and appellate jurisdiction? What is appellate jurisdiction? And it seems that the original jurisdiction is exclusive. (Marbury 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.) 211. "IN ALL OTHER CASES BEFORE MENTIONED, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION." &c.-It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 138; Curtis' Com. 459, 480. $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 any other mode of proceeding than that which the law prescribes. Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. 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 Cr. 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 Crane, 5 Pet. 190; Story's Const. § 1755, 1756; Curtis' Com. $113. ferred? 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 final; and the matter in controversy must exceed the sum of two require 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 v. Mercein, 5 How. 120. See Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401; 3 Cond. 185; Course v. Stead, 4 Dall. 22; 1 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 v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; 3 Cond. 575; Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117; 6 Cond. 462.) Bank of United States v. Daniel, 12 How. 52. 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 appellate actually made thereon by the same court, in the manner required jurisdic by the section. (Shoemaker v. Randell, 10 Pet. 394.) McKinney v. Carroll, 12 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. tion? |