Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-Federal Courts. District of Columbia Courts That the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia is a court of the United States results from the right of exclusive legislation over the District which the Constitution has given to Con gress. Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 10. Justices of the peace in the District of Columbia, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon them by Congress to try and determine cases, criminal or civil, are, in some sense, judicial officers, but they are not inferior courts of the United States, for the Constitution requires judges of all such courts to be appointed during good behavior. Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 17. Court of Claims The act of Congress establishing the Court of Claims is constitutional. Congress may undoubtedly establish tribunals with special powers to examine testimony and decide, in the first instance, upon the validity and justice of any claim for money against the United States, subject to the supervision and control of Congress, or a head of any of the executive departments. Gordon v. U. S., 117 U. S. 699; but in this case the act of March 3, 1863, providing that judgments of the Court of Claims should be estimated for by the Secretary of the Treasury before being paid, was held unconstitutional in that it amounted to a denial of judicial power and the allowance of an appeal to the Supreme Court was unauthorized. Jurisdiction In general. The jurisdiction of the Federal courts is limited by the Constitution. The vesting of judicial power is imperative, and the power to establish courts and confer jurisdiction upon them is unlimited; but the courts thus created possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power which creates them. The creation of the courts does not ipso facto confer any jurisdiction; positive legislation to that end is necessary. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 432. Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch 304. Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 251. U. S. v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 33. Turner v. Bank, 4 Dall. 10. McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 604. Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 245. Fontain v. Ravenel, 17 How. 384. Johnson Company v. Wharton, 152 U. S. 260. Insurance Company v. Dunn, 19 Wall 226. Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10. Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274. Mitchell v. Clark, 110 U. S. 633. Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-Federal Courts. It was said in Kline v. Burke Constr. Co. (260 U. S.-) that jurisdiction of inferior courts may be granted, withheld, or withdrawn in the discretion of Congress. As to the common-law jurisdiction of Federal courts see— Rice v. Railroad Company, 1 Black 374. As to the criminal jurisdiction of the Federal courts see U. S. v. Worrall, 2 Dall. 384. U. S. v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32. U. S. v. Eaton, 144 U. S. 677. As to criminal jurisdiction in general and special cases see Bird v. U. S., 187 U. S. 118. Lamar v. U. S., 240 U. S. 60. Equity jurisdiction.-Congress may confer on circuit and district courts equitable jurisdiction in cases coming within the Constitution. Livingston v. Story, 9 Pet. 632. Fontain v. Ravenel, 17 How. 384. Where Congress has given a Federal court jurisdiction of an action at law in certain cases, such court does not thereby acquire jurisdiction to entertain in those cases a bill in equity not relating to an action at law. Livingston v. Van Ingen, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 507. Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475. Yost v. Dallas County, 236 U. S. 50. Special jurisdiction.-An act conferring on the district court jurisdiction to adjudicate French and Spanish land grants on written evidence of title is to be strictly construed, and confers no jurisdiction to render a decree founded on mere adverse possession. U. S. v. Rillieux, 14 How. 190. Suits by or against national banks.-Act conferring on Federal circuit courts jurisdiction of all suits by or against national. banks, irrespective of the subject matter, held constitutional. Foss v. First Nat. Bank, 3 Fed. 185; decree affirmed in Bissell v. First Nat. Bank v. Fellows, 244 U. S. 416. "Inferior courts" are of special and limited authority erected on such principles that proceedings must show their jurisdiction, their judgments being entirely disregarded for this purpose, and whose judgments are subject to revision by an appellate court. Their jurisdiction depends exclusively on the Consti Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-Federal Courts. tution and the terms of statutes passed in pursuance thereof, and must appear of record. Cuddy, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 284. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 205. Grace v. American Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 283. See also Mossman v. Higgenson, 4 Dall. 14. Bors v. Preston, 111 U. S. 255. Mansfield etc., R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 382. U. S. Bank v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch 86. The inferior Federal courts contemplated by this section are not inferior in the technical sense of that term, but they are courts of limited jurisdiction, and they can exercise only that jurisdiction which is conferred upon them by act of Congress, either expressly or by necessary implication. As an instance of a power necessarily implied, the power to punish for contempt is deemed to be inherent. The inferior Federal courts can not exercise common-law jurisdiction nor proceed by information in criminal cases unless the power is granted by Congress. Their respective jurisdictions must be defined by Congress, and can not be enlarged or restricted by State laws. Kempe v. Kennedy, 5 Cranch 185. Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. (C. C.) 235. U. S. v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 34. Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75. U. S. v. Joe, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,478. Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738. U. S. v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115. See also McCormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 199. Kennedy v. Georgia State Bank, 8 How. 612. Stuart v. Easton, 156 U. S. 47. Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 302. In re Debs, 158 U. S. 596. U. S. v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415. U. S. v Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336. In re Barry, 136 U. S. 609. Steamboat Orleans v. Phoebus, 11 Pet. 184. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 330. Cowles v. Mercer County, 7 Wall. 118. Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 530. Leadville Coal Co. v. McCreery, 141 U. S. 477. Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. Pinckney, 149 U. S. 194. Notwithstanding Congress may adopt State procedure for the Federal courts, State legislation prescribing modes of redress can not, after adoption, operate to deprive the Federal courts of jurisdiction conferred by citizenship of the parties to an action. Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-Federal Courts. Jurisdiction can not be conferred on the courts by stipulation of the parties. Chicot County v. Sherwood, 148 U. S. 534. Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 618. Property in custody of the law. The United States courts and the courts of the several States, while they exercise jurisdiction in the same territory, do not exercise it on the same plane. A specific thing, once taken into the jurisdiction of the one, is immediately removed from the judicial power of the other. Covell v. Heyman, 111 U. S. 176. See also Day v. Gallup, 2 Wall. 97. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371. In re Barrus, 136 U. S. 586. Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168. Wabash R. Co. v. Adelbert College, 208 U. S. 38. Ingersoll v. Coram, 211 U. S. 335. Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130. Brown v. Clarke, 4 How. 4. Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450. Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oilcloth Co., 112 U. S. 294. In re Swan, 150 U. S. 637. Palmer v. Texas, 212 U. S. 118. Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612. Pulliam v. Osborne, 17 How. 471. Put in Bay Waterworks, etc., Co. v. Ryan, 181 U. S. 409. The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283. Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U. S. 131. The Lottawanna, 20 Wall. 201. Osborn v. U. S., 91 U. S. 474. Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172. Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank, etc., Co., 215 U. S. 33. Yonley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276. Green v. Creighton, 23 How. 90. Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 256. Shelby v. Bacon, 10 How. 56. Peale v. Phipps, 14 How. 368. Earle v. Pennsylvania, 178 U. S. 449. People's Bank v. Calhoun, 102 U. S. 256. Calhoun v. Lanaux, 127 U. S. 634. Leadville Coal Co. v. McCreery, 141 U. S. 475. U. S. Trust Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 150 U. S. 287. Seney v. Wabash R. Co., 150 U. S. 310. Porter v. Sabin, 149 U. S 473. Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168. Grant v. Buckner, 172 U. S. 232. Erb v. Morasch, 177 U. S. 584. Injunctions by State courts against proceedings in Federal courts.An injunction issued in a State court is inoperative in any manner to affect process or proceedings in the Federal courts. U. S. v. Keokuk, 6 Wall, 514. See also McKim v. Voorhies, 7 Cranch 279. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Brdg. Co., 18 How. 421. Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136. Central Nat. Bank v. Stevens, 169 U. S. 432. Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-Federal Courts. Effect on action in Federal courts of subsequent proceedings in State courts. The jurisdiction of a United States circuit court over a cause properly before it can not be defeated by the institution by one of the parties in a State court, whether civil or criminal, involving the same legal questions. Prout v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537. Wallace v. McConnell, 13 Pet. 136. A Federal court in which is first raised the question of the validity, under the Federal Constitution, of a State statute, has a right to decide that question to the exclusion of the State courts, and may enjoin criminal proceedings subsequently commenced under it in the State court until its duty is performed. Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123. Proceedings before State water board to determine rights of claimants to waters of a stream differs so from private suits between a few of the claimants in the Federal court restraining encroachments on rights in stream as to render rule inapplicable that a court of competent jurisdiction first obtaining jurisdiction of the same matter will retain it. Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, 241 U. S. 440. In Looney v. Eastern Texas R. Co. (247 U. S. 214) it was said that the use of injunctions by Federal courts first acquiring jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter of a suit for the purpose of protecting and preserving that jurisdiction until the object of the suit is accomplished, is well recognized. and Judicial Code, section 265, prohibiting injunction staying proceedings in State court is not applicable to such proceedings. Once jurisdiction has been granted to the Federal courts, it rests with the courts themselves to determine whether a particular case comes within that jurisdiction. The judicial power resting in courts can not be denied them, and any act which has that effect in prescribing rules of decision is void. New rights and remedies may have the effect of increasing the business of a court; but that in no proper sense increases its jurisdiction. To give jurisdiction to a Federal court it is sufficient that the jurisdiction may be found in the Constitution or the law, but the two must cooperate, the Constitution as the fountain and the laws of Congress as the streams which convey the jurisdiction to the court. U. S. v. Peters, 5 Cranch 136. Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506. Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 459. In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S. 582. Klein's case, 7 Ct. Cl. 240. Buford v. Holley, 28 Fed. 680. United Copper, etc., Co. v. Amalgamated Copper Co., 244 U. S. 261. |