Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-Controlling Effect of Decisions. given in the Federal courts the force and effect to which it is entitled under the principles of res judicata as settled by the Federal Supreme Court, though they may differ from the doctrine announced by the courts of the State in which the circuit court was sitting. Gunter v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 200 U. S. 273. Legislative policy. It is not within either the disposition or power of this court to revise the necessarily complicated taxing systems of the States for the purpose of attempting to produce what might be thought to be a more just distribution of the burdens of taxation than that arrived at by the State legislatures. Dane v. Jackson, 256 U. S. 598. Legislative declaration of facts, affording ground for rent regulation in the District of Columbia, entitled to great respect. Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135. Marcus Brown Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170. Rule of property.-Where the title to land has once been determined by a decision of the Supreme Court, such decision becomes a rule of property and will not be disturbed. Minnesota Co. v. National Co., 3 Wall. 332. Mitchell v. Burlington, 4 Wall. 270. Nadal v. May, 233 U. S. 447. Decisions of Circuit Courts of Appeals A decision by the circuit court of appeals in any circuit, so long as it remains unappealed from, and so long as the Supreme Court has issued no writ of certiorari to reexamine it, is to be regarded as having more effect in other Federal courts than that ordinarily given to those of the highest State tribunals, or other courts of merely concurrent jurisdiction. Beach v. Hobbs, 82 Fed. 916; decree reversed in 92 Fed. 146. See also Smith v. Guffey, 202 Fed. 106; decree reversed in Guffey v. Smith, 237 U. S. 101. Consolidated, etc., Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co., 162 Fed. 892, The Fayerweather Will Cases, 118 Fed. 943; decree affirmed in Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U. S. 485. Rock Spring Distilling Co. v. Gaines, 246 U. S. 312. Decisions of District Courts Judges who sit in the same court should not attempt to overrule the decisions of each other, especially on questions involving rules of property and practice, except for the most cogent reasons. Shreve v. Cheesman, 69 Fed. 785. Boatmen's Bank v. Fritzlen, 135 Fed. 650, reversing judgment Weldon v. Fritzlen, 128 Fed. 60S, and writ of certiorari denied Fritzlen v. Boatmen's Bank, 198 U. S. 586. See also Hancock Inspirator Co. v. Regester, 35 Fed. 61; appeal dismissed 149 U. S. 775. Sec. 1-Distribution of Judicial Power-Territorial and Provisional Courts. Territorial and Provisional Courts The courts of a Territory, although they derive their jurisdiction from Congress, are not United States courts within the meaning of this section and so do not come within the purview of acts of Congress which treat of "courts of the United States" only. These courts are not constitutional in the sense that the judicial power conferred by the Constitution can be deposited in them. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power defined in this article, but is conferred in the execution of those general powers which Congress possesses over the Territories. The City of Panama, 101 U. S. 460. American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 546. See also McAllister v. U. S., 141 U. S. 174. U. S. v. McMillan, 165 U. S. 510. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 282. The fact that the judges of Territorial courts are appointed by the President under act of Congress does not make the courts which they hold courts of the United States. Broadly speaking, however, the Territorial district courts are dual in their nature and sit both as Territorial and Federal courts. Congress may define the jurisdiction of Territorial courts, or delegate the authority to the Territorial government. Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 447. McAllister v. U. S., 141 U. S. 174. This article does not make any provision for abnormal conditions in conquered territory nor permit the establishment by Congress of courts in insurrectionary districts. In the performance of the duty of National Government, as a belligerent, to protect persons and property, the President has power, incident to military occupation, to establish provisional courts at the seat of war; but such courts can not decide cases of prize of war as ordinary courts of admiralty. Mechanics', etc., Bank v. Union Bank, 22 Wall. 296. The Grapeshot, 9 Wall. 132. Lewis v. Cocks, 23 Wall. 469. Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 How. 515. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 121. In re Vidal, 179 U. S. 126. Civil courts can not review proceedings and sentences of courtsmartial where they are legally organized and have jurisdiction Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-State Courts. of the offense and of the person of accused and have complied with the statutory requirements governing their proceedings. Mullan v. U. S., 212 U. S. 516. State Courts In General Courts of the United States and of the States are independent of each other in matters within their respective jurisdictions, the jurisdiction of the State courts not having been affected by the grant of judicial powers to the General Government, except where such jurisdiction would be incompatible with the powers granted to the United States. In some cases the Federal judicial power is necessarily exclusive of all State authority; in others it may be made so at the option of Congress, or it may be exercised concurrently with that of the states. Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 597. Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 288. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275. In Dier v. Banton, 262 U. S. 147, it was held that books and papers in possession of receiver in bankruptcy appointed by Federal court can not be taken by subpoena issuing from State court unless Federal court, exercising its discretion with due regard for comity, consents. Source of Authority Where jurisdiction may be conferred upon Federal courts it may be made exclusive; but if exclusive jurisdiction be neither express nor implied, State courts have concurrent jurisdiction whenever, by their own constitution, they are competent to take it. If the jurisdiction of the Federal courts is paramount in certain cases the State courts are prohibited from taking any cognizance of such cases, and all proceedings in a State court are void. Thus a statute authorizing proceedings in a State court in admiralty causes is unconstitutional. Congress can not confer jurisdiction on a State court. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 337. Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1. Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 590. The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 12. Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-State Courts. The State can not confer any jurisdiction on the Federal courts nor prescribe the means or mode of its exercise. No part of the criminal jurisdiction can be delegated by Congress to State courts, but the same act may, as to its character and tendencies and the consequence involved, constitute an offense against both the State and Federal Governments, and may draw to its commission the penalties denounced by either, and a crime not made an offense under Federal law is cognizable in a State court. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304. U. S. v. Marigold, 9 How. 569. State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. 317, 9 Am. Dec. 534. See also Cross v. North Carolina, 132 U. S. 139. Crossley v. California, 168 U. S. 641. Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 433. Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539. Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 136. Where Federal and State courts have concurrent jurisdiction in a civil or criminal case the tribunal which first obtains jurisdiction holds it, to the exclusion of the other, until its duty is performed; the acquisition of jurisdiction by the one devests the other of all jurisdiction. The sphere of action appropriated to the United States is beyond the reach of the judicial process issued by a State judge or a State court, and the same is true of State courts, which within their jurisdiction can not be interfered with by Federal process. A State court has no jurisdiction of a proceeding to deprive a Federal court receiver of the possession of property committed to him, nor has a State court jurisdiction of a suit against a Federal court receiver for his misconduct. Property in the possession of a court or its officer can not be disturbed under process of a court of concurrent juris. diction, State or Federal. Smith v. McIver, 9 Wheat. 535. See also Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 624. Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 345. Pulliam v. Osborne, 17 How. 475. Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 370. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co. v. Lake Street, etc., R. Co., 177 U. S. 62 Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 274. Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wall. 199. Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 720. Tua v. Carriere, 117 U. S. 208. In re Johnson, 167 U. S. 125. Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-State Courts. State courts are not without jurisdiction of personal injury action because parties were engaged in work under contract with the Federal Government. Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon, 244 U. S. 68. Habeas Corpus 1 Ilabeas corpus can not issue from a State court to secure the release of a person held under the authority of Federal laws, but subject to the exclusive authority of the Federal courts to determine the legality of a detention under Federal authority State courts may determine the legality of the restraint of a person held within State limits, although depending on the Federal Constitution and laws. The extent of the Federal courts' power to inquire into the legality of restraint under the order of a State court under State laws is limited to a determination of the question whether the restraint is in violation of the Federal Constitution. Duncan v. Darst, 1 How. 308. See also Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 523. Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. 402. Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 195. Bergeman v. Backer, 157 U. S. 659. Draper v. U. S., 164 U. S. 247. Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231. Ex parte Dorr, 3 How. 103. Ex parte Crouch, 112 U. S. 178. Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241. A Federal court should not, except in cases of peculiar urgency, issue a writ of habeas corpus to release one imprisoned under State authority. New York v. Eno, 155 U. S. 89. See also Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U. S. 272. Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U. S. 293. In re Boardman, 169 U. S. 39. Baker v. Grice, 169 U. S. 284. Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148. A Federal court has power to issue a writ of habeas corpus, on petition of a United States marshal in the custody of a sheriff on the charge of murder, and to discharge him, if it appears that he committed the act in pursuance of a law of the United States, or that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1. 1 See also Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 2, p. 257. |