[Acts of June

5,1794, sect. 6; 1807; act of March 3, 1815, sect. 4.] Original cognizance in maritime causes and the laws of the United States.

act of Feb. 13,

of seizure under

high seas; where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States. (b) And shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the jurisdiction. case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. (c) And shall also have cognizance, concurrent as last mentioned, of all suits at common law where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. And shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the courts of the several States, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid. (d) And the trial of issues in fact, in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime juris- by jury. diction, shall be by jury.

SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That the district court in Kentucky district shall, besides the jurisdiction aforesaid, have jurisdiction of all other causes, except of appeals and writs of error, hereinafter made cognizable in a circuit court, and shall proceed therein in the same

Concurrent

Trial of fact

Kentucky dis

trict court.
[Obsolete.]
1807, ch. 16.

(a) Jurisdiction of the District Courts in cases of admiralty seizures, under laws of impost, navigation and trade. M'Donough v. Danery, 3 Dall. 188; 1 Cond. Rep. 94. The United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; 1 Cond. Rep. 132. Glass et al. v. The Betsey, 3 Dall. 6; 1 Cond. Rep. 10. The Alerta, 9 Cranch, 359; 3 Cond. Rep. 425. The Merino et al., 9 Wheat. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 623. The Josefa Segunda, 10 Wheat. 312; 6 Cond. Rep. 111. Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 2; 2 Cond. Rep. 2. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 472. Penhallow et al. v. Doane's Adm'rs, 3 Dall. 54; 1 Cond. Rep. 21. United States v. Richard Peters, 3 Dall. 121; 1 Cond. Rep. 60. Hudson et al. v. Guestier, 6 Cranch, 281; 2 Cond. Rep. 374. Brown v. The United States, 8 Cranch, 110; 3 Cond. Rep. 56. The Sarah, S Wheat. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 472. The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546; 4 Cond. Rep. 322. Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1. Gelston et al. v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246; 4 Cond. Rep. 244. The Bolina, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 75. The Robert Fulton, 1 Paine's C. C. R. 620; Bee's D. C. R. 11. De Lovio v. Boit et al., 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 398. The Abby, 1 Mason's Rep. 360. The Little Ann, Paine's C. C. R. 40. Davis v. A New Brig, Gilpin's D. C. R. 473. The Catharine, 1 Adm. Decis. 104.

(b) An information against a vessel under the act of Congress of May 22, 1794, on account of an alleged exportation of arms, is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and an appeal from the District to the Circuit Court, in such a case is sustainable. It is also a civil cause, and triable without the intervention of a jury, under the 9th section of the judicial act. The United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; 1 Cond. Rep. 132. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 472. The Abby, 1 Mason, 360. The Little Ann, Paine's C. C. R. 40.

When the District and State courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the right to maintain the jurisdiction attaches to that tribunal which first exercises it, and obtains possession of the thing. The Robert Fulton, Paine's C. C. R. 620.

(c) Burke v. Trevitt, 1 Mason, 96. The courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction of all seizures made on land or water, for a breach of the laws of the United States, and any intervention of State authority, which by taking the thing seized out of the hands of the officer of the United States, might obstruct the exercise of this jurisdiction, is unlawful. Slocum v. Mayberry et al., 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1.

(d) Davis v. Packard, 6 Peters, 41. As an abstract question, it is difficult to understand on what ground a State court can claim jurisdiction of civil suits against foreign consuls. By the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; and the judiciary act of 1789 gives to the district courts of the United States, exclusively of the courts of the several States, jurisdiction of all suits against consuls and vice consuls, except for certain offences enumerated in this act. Davis v. Packard, 7 Peters, 276.

If a consul, being sued in a State court, omits to plead his privilege of exemption from the suit, and afterwards, on removing the judgment of the inferior court to a higher court by writ of error, claims the privilege, such an omission is not a waiver of the privilege. If this was to be viewed merely as a personal privilege, there might be grounds for such a conclusion. But it cannot be so considered; it is the privilege of the country or government which the consul represents. This is the light in which foreign ministers are considered by the law of nations; and our constitution and law seem to put consuls on the same footing in this respect. Ibid.

Maine district [Obsolete.]

court.

Circuit courts original cognimatter in dis.

zance where the

pute exceeds five hundred dollars.

manner as a circuit court, and writs of error and appeals shall lie from decisions therein to the Supreme Court in the same causes, as from a circuit court to the Supreme Court, and under the same regulations. (a) And the district court in Maine district shall, besides the jurisdiction herein before granted, have jurisdiction of all causes, except of appeals and writs of error herein after made cognizable in a circuit court, and shall proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court: And writs of error shall lie from decisions therein to the circuit court in the district of Massachusetts in the same manner as from other district courts to their respective circuit courts.

SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That the circuit courts shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and the United States are plaintiffs, or petitioners; or an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State.(b) And shall have (a) By an act passed February 24, 1807, the Circuit Court jurisdiction of the District Court of Kentucky was abolished.

(b) The amount laid in the declaration is the sum in controversy. If the plaintiff receive less than the amount so claimed, the jurisdiction of the court is not affected. Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch, 229. Gordon v. Longest, 16 Peters, 97. Lessee of Hartshorn v. Wright, Peters' C. C. R. 64.

By the 5th section of the act of February 21, 1794, "an act to promote the progress of the useful arts," &c., jurisdiction in actions for violations of patent rights, is given to the Circuit Courts. Also by the act of February 15, 1819, original cognizance, as well in equity as at law, is given to the Circuit Courts of all actions, and for the violation of copy rights. In such cases appeals lie to the Supreme Court of the United States. So also in cases of interest, or disability of a district judge. Act of May 8, 1792, sec. 11; act of March 2, 1809, sec. 1; act of March 3, 1821.

Jurisdiction in cases of injunctions on Treasury warrants of distress. Act of May 15, 1820, sec. 4. Jurisdiction in cases removed from State courts. Act of February 4, 1815, sec. 8; act of March 3,

1815, sec. 6.

Jurisdiction in cases of assigned debentures. Act of March 2, 1799.

Jurisdiction of crimes committed within the Indian territories. Act of March 30, 1830, sec. 15; act of April 30, 1816, sec. 4; act of March 3, 1817, sec. 2.

Jurisdiction in bankruptcy. Act of August 19, 1841, chap. 9, [repealed.]

Jurisdiction in cases where citizens of the same State claim title to land under a grant from a State other than that in which the suit is pending in a State court. Act of September 24, 1789, sec. 12. See Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wheat. 377; 4 Cond. Rep. 168.

Jurisdiction where officers of customs are parties. Act of February 4, 1815, sec. 8; act of March 3, 1815, sec. 6; act of March 3, 1817, sec. 2.

A circuit court though an inferior court in the language of the constitution, is not so in the language of the common law; nor are its proceedings subject to the scrutiny of those narrow rules, which the caution or jealousy of the courts at Westminster long applied to courts of that denomination; but are entitled to as liberal intendments and presumptions in favour of their regularity, as those of any supreme court. Turner v. The Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8; 1 Cond. Rep. 205.

The Circuit Courts of the United States have cognizance of all offences against the United States. What those offences are depends upon the common law applied to the sovereignty and authorities confided to the United States. The United States v. Coolidge, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 488, 495.

Where the jurisdiction of the federal courts has once attached, no subsequent change in the relation or condition of the parties in the progress of the cause, will oust that jurisdiction. The United States v. Meyers, 2 Brocken. C. C. R. 516.

All the cases arising under the laws of the United States are not, per se, among the cases comprised within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, under the provisions of the 11th section of the judiciary act of 1789. The Postmaster General v. Stockton and Stokes, 12 Peters, 524.

Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States in suits between aliens and citizens of another State than that in which the suit is brought :

The courts of the United States will entertain jurisdiction of a cause where all the parties are aliens, if none of them object to it. Mason et al. v. The Blaireau, 2 Cranch, 240; 1 Cond. Rep. 397.

The Supreme Court understands the expressions in the act of Congress, giving jurisdiction to the courts of the United States "where an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State,' to mean that each distinct interest should be represented by persons, all of whom have a right to sue, or may be sued in the federal courts: that is, when the interest is joint, each of the persons concerned in that interest must be competent to sue or be liable to be sued in those courts. Strawbridge v. Curtis, 3 Cranch, 267; 1 Cond. Rep. 523.

Neither the Constitution nor the act of Congress regards the subject of the suit, but the parties to it. Mossman's Ex'ors v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; 1 Cond. Rep. 210.

When the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court depends on the character of the parties, and such party consists of a number of individuals, each one must be competent to sue in the courts of the United States, or jurisdiction cannot be entertained. Ward v. Arredendo et al., Paine's C. C. R. 410. Strawbridge v. Curtis, 3 Cranch, 267; 1 Cond. Rep. 523.

The courts of the United States have not jurisdiction, unless it appears by the record that it belongs

Exclusive cog. nizance of

crimes and of. fences cogniza ble under the

laws of the United States. No person to be arrested in

one district for trial in another

exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States, (a) except where this act otherwise provides, or the laws of the United States shall otherwise direct, and concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts of the crimes and offences cognizable therein. But no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another, in any civil action before a circuit or district court.(b) And no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against an inhabitant of the United States, by any original process in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be on any civil suit. found at the time of serving the writ, nor shall any district or circuit court have cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favour of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment had been made, except in cases of foreign bills of exchange. (c) And the circuit courts shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the district courts under the regulations and restrictions herein after provided.(d)

Limitation as to civil suits. Actions on

promissory

notes.

Circuit courts

shall also have appellate juris

diction.

Matter in dis

dollars.

Removal of

state courts.

SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That if a suit be commenced in any state court against an alien, or by a citizen of the state in which pute above 500 the suit is brought against a citizen of another state, and the matter in dispute exceeds the aforesaid sum or value of five hundred dollars, ex- causes from clusive of costs, to be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court; and the defendant shall, at the time of entering his appearance in such state court, file a petition for the removal of the cause for trial into the next circuit court, to be held in the district where the suit is pending, or if in the district of Maine to the district court next to be holden therein, or if in Kentucky district to the district court next to be holden therein, and offer good and sufficient surety for his entering in such court, on the first day of its session, copies of said process against him, and also for his there appearing and entering special bail in the cause, if special bail was originally requisite therein, it shall then be the duty of the state court to accept the surety, and proceed no further in the cause, and any bail that may have been originally taken shall be discharged, and the said copies being entered as aforesaid, in such court of the United States, the cause shall there proceed in the same manner as if it had been brought there by original process. (e) And any attach

Special bail.

to them, as that the parties are citizens of different States. Wood v. Wagnon, 2 Cranch, 9; 1 Cond. Rep. 335.

Where the parties to a suit are such as to give the federal courts jurisdiction, it is immaterial that they are administrators or executors, and that those they represent were citizens of the same State. Chappedelaine et al. v. Decheneaux, 4 Cranch, 306; 2 Cond. Rep. 116. Childress et al. v. Emory et al., 8 Wheat. 642; 5 Cond. Rep. 547. See also Brown v. Strode, 5 Cranch, 303; 2 Cond. Rep. 265. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382; 1 Cond. Rep. 170. Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699; 5 Cond. Rep. 561. Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; 2 Cond. Rep. 332. Sere et al. v. Pitot et al., 6 Cranch, 332; 2 Cond. Rep. 389. Shute v. Davis, Peters' C. C. R. 431. Flanders v. The Etna Ins. Com., 3 Mason, C. C. R. 158. Kitchen v. Sullivan et al., 4 Wash. C. C. R. 84. Briggs v. French, 2 Sumner's C. C. R. 252.

(a) The Circuit Courts of the United States have jurisdiction of a robbery committed on the high seas under the 8th section of the act of April 30, 1790, although such robbery could not, if committed on land, be punished with death. The United States v. Palmer et al., 3 Wheat. 610; 4 Cond. Rep. 352. See The United States v. Coolidge et al., 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 488, 495. The United States v. Coombs, 12 Peters, 72.

The Circuit Courts have no original jurisdiction in suits for penalties and forfeitures arising under the laws of the United States, but the District Courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Ketland v. The Cassius, 2 Dall. 365.

(b) The petitioner was arrested in Pennsylvania, by the marshal of the district of Pennsylvania, under an attachment from the Circuit Court of Rhode Island, for a contempt in not appearing in that court after a monition, served upon him in the State of Pennsylvania, to answer in a prize cause as to a certain bale of goods condemned to the captors, which had come into the possession of Peter Graham, the petitioner. Held, that the circuit and district courts of the United States cannot, either in suits at law or equity, send their process into another district, except where specially authorized so to do by some act of Congress. Ex parte Peter Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 456.

(c) Bean v. Smith, 2 Mason's C. C. R. 252. Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheat. 146; 5 Cond. Rep. 44. Mol. lan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537; 5 Cond. Rep. 666.

(d) Smith v. Jackson, Paine's C. C. R. 453.

(e) The Judge of a State Court to which an application is made for the removal of a cause into a court of the United States must exercise a legal discretion as to the right claimed to remove the cause;

Attachment of goods holden to final judgment.

Title of land

where value ex

ceeds 500 dol.

lars.

ment of the goods or estate of the defendant by the original process, shall hold the goods or estate so attached, to answer the final judgment in the same manner as by the laws of such state they would have been holden to answer final judgment, had it been rendered by the court in which the suit commenced. And if in any action commenced in a state court, the title of land be concerned, and the parties are citizens of the same state, and the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, the sum or value being made to appear to the satisfaction of the court, either party, before the trial, shall state to the court and make affidavit if they require it, that he claims and shall rely upon a right or title to the land, under a grant from a state other than that in which the suit is pending, and produce the original grant or an exemplification of it, except where the loss of public records shall put it out of his power, and shall move that the adverse party inform the court, whether he claims a right or title to the land under a grant from the state in which the suit is pending; the said adverse [party] shall give such information, or otherwise not be allowed to plead such grant, or give it in evidence upon the trial, and if he informs that he does claim under such grant, the party claiming under the grant first mentioned may then, on motion, remove the cause for trial to the next circuit court to be holden in such district, or if in the district of Maine, to the court next to be holden therein; or if in Kenand Kentucky, tucky district, to the district court next to be holden therein; but if he is the defendant, shall do it under the same regulations as in the beforementioned case of the removal of a cause into such court by an alien; and neither party removing the cause, shall be allowed to plead or give evidence of any other title than that by him stated as aforesaid, as the Issues in fact ground of his claim; and the trial of issues in fact in the circuit courts by jury. shall, in all suits, except those of equity, and of admiralty, and maritime jurisdiction, be by jury.(a.)

If in Maine

where causes are removable. [Obsolete.]

Supreme

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall court exclusive have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a jurisdiction. state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction.(b.) And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul,

Proceedings against public ministers.

the defendant being entitled to the right to remove the cause under the law of the United States, on the facts of the case, (the judge of the State court could not legally prevent the removal ;) the application for the removal having been made in proper form, it was the duty of the State court to proceed no further in the cause. Gordon v. Longest, 16 Peters, 97.

One great object in the establishment of the courts of the United States, and regulating their jurisdiction, was to have a tribunal in each State presumed to be free from local influence, and to which all who were non-residents or aliens, might resort for legal redress; and this object would be defeated if a judge in the exercise of any other than a legal discretion, may deny to the party entitled to it, a removal of his cause. Ibid.

(a) The provisions of the laws of the United States relating to juries, and trials by jury are:-Trial by jury-act of September 24, 1789, chap. 20, sec. 10, sec. 12, sec. 15.-Exemption from attending on juries-act of May 7, 1800, chap. 46, sec. 4. Choice of jurors and qualification of juries-act of September 24, 1789, chap. 20, sec. 29; act of May 13, 1800; act of July 20, 1840; act of March 3, 1841, chap. 19. Expired as to juries in Pennsylvania. Special jury act of April 29, 1802, chap. 31, sec. 30. -Jury in criminal cases-act of September 24, 1789, chap. 20, sec. 29; act of April 30, 1790, chap. 9. Manner of summoning jurors-act of September 24, 1789, sec. 29; act of April 29, 1802, chap. 31. Jurymen de talibus-act of September 24, 1789, chap. 20.

(b) As to cases in which States, or alleged States, are parties, the following cases are referred to: The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 5 Peters, 1. New Jersey v. The State of New York, 5 Peters, 284. Ex parte Juan Madrazzo, 7 Peters, 627. The State of Rhode Island v. The State of Massachusetts, 12 Peters, 657. Cohens v. The State of Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264; 5 Cond. Rep. 90. New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 3. Fowler v. Lindsay et al., 3 Dall. 411.

or vice consul, shall be a party. (a) And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court, in all actions at law against citizens of the United States, shall be by jury. The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for ; (b) and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition(c) to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, (d) in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.

SEC. 14. And be it further enacted, That all the before-mentioned courts of the United States, shall have power to issue writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, (e) and all other writs not specially provided for

(a) The United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467; 6 Cond. Rep. 394. Davis v. Packard, 6 Peters, 41. (b) As to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, see the cases collected in Peters's Digest, "Supreme Court,' ""Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court," and the following cases: The United States v. Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 108; 2 Cond. Rep. 434. Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321; 1 Cond. Rep. 144. United States v. Moore, 3 Cranch, 159; 1Cond. Rep. 480. Owings v. Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch, 344; 2 Cond. Rep. 275. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304; 3 Cond. Rep. 575. Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 3 Cranch, 268; 1 Cond. Rep. 524. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; 5 Cond. Rep. 225. Smith v. The State of Maryland, 6 Cranch, 286; 2 Cond. Rep. 377. Inglee v. Coolidge, 2 Wheat. 363; 4 Cond. Rep. 155. Nicholls et al. v. Hodges Ex'ors, 1 Peters, 562. Buel et al. v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312; 5 Cond. Rep. 445. Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat. 311; 4 Cond. Rep. 465. Matthews v. Zane et al., 7 Wheat. 164; 5 Cond. Rep. 265. M Cluny v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598; 5 Cond. Rep. 197. Houston v. Moore, 3 Wheat. 433; 3 Cond. Rep. 286. Montgomery v. Hernandez et al., 12 Wheat. 129; 6 Cond. Rep. 475. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; 5 Cond. Rep. 90. Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448; 5 Cond. Rep. 134. Weston et al. v. The City Council of Charleston, 2 Peters, 449. Hickie v. Starke et al., 1 Peters, 94. Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Peters, 380. M'Bride v. Hoey, 11 Peters, 167. Ross v. Barland et. al., 1 Peters, 655. The City of New Orleans v. De Armas, 9 Peters, 224. Crowell v. Randell, 10 Peters, 368. Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117; 6Cond. Rep. 462. Menard v. Aspasia, 5 Peters, 505. Worcester v. The State of Georgia, 6 Peters, 515. The United States v. Moore, 3 Cranch, 159; 1 Cond. Rep. 480.

(c) Prohibition. Where the District Court of the United States has no jurisdiction of a cause brought before it, a prohibition will be issued from the Supreme Court to prevent proceedings. The United States v. Judge Peters, 3 Dall. 121; 1 Cond. Rep. 60.

(d) Mandamus. The following cases have been decided on the power of the Supreme Court to issue a mandamus. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; 1 Cond. Rep. 267. M'Cluny v. Silliman, 2 Wheat. 369; 4 Cond. Rep. 162. United States v. Lawrence, 3 Dall. 42; 1 Cond. Rep. 19. United States v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121; 1 Cond. Rep. 60. Ex parte Burr, 9 Wheat. 529; 5 Cond. Rep. 660. Parker v. The Judges of the Circuit Court of Maryland, 12 Wheat. 561; 6 Cond. Rep. 644. Ex parte Roberts et al., 6 Peters, 216. Ex parte Davenport, 6 Peters, 661. Ex parte Bradstreet, 12 Peters, 174; 7 Peters, 634; 8 Peters, 588. Life and Fire Ins. Comp. of New York v. Wilson's heirs, 8 Peters, 291.

On a mandamus a superior court will never direct in what manner the discretion of the inferior tribunal shall be exercised; but they will, in a proper case, require an inferior court to decide. Ibid. Life and Fire Ins. Comp. of New York v. Adams, 9 Peters, 571. Ex parte Story, 12 Peters, 339. Ex parte Jesse Hoyt, collector, &c., 13 Peters, 279.

A writ of mandamus is not a proper process to correct an erroneous judgment or decree rendered in an inferior court. This is a matter which is properly examinable on a writ of error, or an appeal to a proper appellate tribunal. Ibid.

Writs of mandamus from the Circuit Courts of the United States. A Circuit Court of the United States has power to issue a mandamus to a collector, commanding him to grant a clearance. Gilchrist et al. v. Collector of Charleston, 1 Hall's Admiralty Law Journal, 429.

The power of the Circuit Court to issue the writ of mandamus is confined exclusively to those cases in which it may be necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction. M'Intire v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504; 2 Cond. Rep. 588.

The Circuit Courts of the United States have no power to issue writs of mandamus after the practice of the King's Bench; but only where they are necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction. Smith v. Jackson, Paine's C. C. R. 453.

(e) Habeas corpus. Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch, 448; 1 Cond. Rep. 594; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75; 2 Cond. Rep. 33.

The writ of habeas corpus does not lie to bring up a person confined in the prison bounds upon a capias ad satisfaciendum, issued in a civil suit. Ex parte Wilson, 6 Cranch, 52; 2 Cond. Rep. 300. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; 5 Cond. Rep. 225.

The power of the Supreme Court to award writs of habeas corpus is conferred expressly on the court by the 14th section of the judicial act, and has been repeatedly exercised. No doubt exists respecting the power. No law of the United States prescribes the cases in which this great writ shall be issued, nor the power of the court over the party brought up by it. The term used in the constitution is one which is well understood, and the judicial act authorizes the court, and all other courts of the United States and the judges thereof to issue the writ "for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of commitment." Ex parte Tobias Watkins, 3 Peters, 201.

As the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is appellate, it must be shown to the court that the court has power to award a habeas corpus, before one will be granted. Ex parte Milburn, 9 Peters, 704.

VOL. I.-11