Circuit Courts of the United States. court:-This is a case arising under an act of congress, which incorporated the Bank of the United States, and the suit may be maintained in the circuit court. Bank of the United States v. The Northumberland, &c. Bank, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 108. 484. In an ejectment instituted in a state court of Pennsylvania, by A, a citizen of Pennsylvania, against B, also a citizen of that state, tenant in possession; C, a citizen of Maryland, after a judgment by default against B, was, upon his petition, admitted as defendant in the suit, the petition stating that B was his tenant. The petition of the plaintiff further stated, that the land in dispute was worth more than five hundred dollars; and it prayed that the cause might be removed into the circuit court, which was granted. The circuit court remanded the cause to the state court, on the ground of want of jurisdiction; C being only a co-defendant with B, who, as well as the plaintiff, is a citizen of Pennsylvania. Beardsley v. Torrey, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 286. 485. If there be two defendants in the state court, the cause cannot be removed into the circuit court upon the petition of one of the defendants. Ibid. 486. The circuit courts of the United States are not inferior courts, in the sense of the common law. Wood v. Mann, 1 Sumner's C. C. R. 587. 487. Where the jurisdiction of the circuit court depends upon citizenship of the parties in different states, this must appear by proper averment in the record; and if it do not, the omission will be fatal at any stage of the cause. Ibid. 488. The circuit court can inquire only into the constitutional power of the legislature of a state to pass a law, not with the policy, justice, or wisdom of their acts. Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldwin's C. C. R. 60. Livingston and Nicholson v. Moore, 1 Baldwin's C. C. R. 441, 442. 489. The circuit court will not dismiss a bill for want of proceeding in the cause for three terms, without giving notice of one term of the application for dismission. Delauney v. Herman, 1 Baldwin's C. C. R. 132. 490. Where the jurisdiction of the federal court 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 strongest considerations of utility and convenience require that the jurisdiction once vested, the action of the court should not be limited, but that it should proceed to make a final disposition of the subject. The United States v. Myers et al., 2 Brockenb. C. C. R. 516. equity, and to courts of admiralty, respectively, as contradistinguished from courts of common law; subject, however, to alterations by the courts, &c. This act has been generally under stood to adopt the principles, rules, and usages of the court of chancery in England. Vattier v. Hinde, 7 Peters, 252. 493. New Jersey.-An alien resident in New Jersey, who holds lands under a special law of that state, may sustain a suit in the circuit court of the United States, relating to such lands. Bonaparte v. The Camden and Amboy Railroad Company, 1 Baldwin's C. C. R. 216. 494. It is admitted that the case of M'Intire v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504; 2 Cond. Rep. 588, and M'Cluny v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 368; 5 Cond. Rep. 197, have decided that the circuit courts of the United States, in the several states, have not authority to issue a mandamus to an officer of the United States. The Postmaster-General v. Stockton and Stokes, 12 Peters. 495. The circuit courts of the United States have, certainly, not jurisdiction of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity. They are not courts of general jurisdiction in all such cases; and an averment is necessary, bringing the case within one of these specified classes. Ibid. 496. 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 courts, under the provisions of the ele venth section of the judiciary act of 1789. Ibid. 497. The circuit court of each district sits within and for that district, and is bounded by its local limits. Whatever may be the extent of the jurisdiction of the circuit court over the subject-matter of suits, in respect to persons and property, it can only be exercised within the limits of the district. Congress might have authorized civil process from any circuit court to run into any state of the Union. It has not done so. It has not, in terms, authorized any civil process to run into any other district, with the single exception of subpoenas to witnesses within a limited distance. In regard to final process, there are two cases, and only two, in which writs of execution can now by law be served in any other district than that in which the judg ment was rendered; one in favour of private persons in another district of the same state; and the other in favour of the United States, in any part of the United States. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300. 498. The mode of conducting trials, the order of introducing evidence, and the times when it is to be introduced, are properly matters belonging to the practice of the circuit courts, with 491. The jurisdiction of the courts of the which the supreme court ought not to interfere United States depends, exclusively, on the con- unless it shall choose to prescribe some fixed stitution and laws of the United States. Living-general rules on the subject, under the authority ston v. Jefferson, 1 Brockenb. C. C. R. 203. of the act of congress. The circuit courts possess this discretion in as ample a manner as other judicial tribunals. The Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad Company v. Stimpson, 14 Pe 492. The act for regulating processes in the courts of the United States, provides that the forms and modes of proceeding in courts of equity, and in those of admiralty and maritimeters, 448. jurisdiction, shall be according to the principles, 499. Motion for a rule on the district judge of rules, and usages, which belong to courts of the eastern district of Louisiana, to show cause District Courts of the United States. Ibid. 503. The supreme court can have no control over the appointment or reinoval of a clerk of the district court, or entertain any inquiry into the grounds of the removal. If the judge is chargeable with any abuse of his power, the supreme court is not the tribunal to which he is DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 504. The district courts of the United States have not jurisdiction in a suit for wages earned in a voyage in a steam vessel, from Shippingport in the state of Kentucky, up the river Missouri, and thence back to the port of departure, as a cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428; 6 Cond. Rep. 173. why a mandamus should not be issued requiring would, per se, be a removal of the prior incum him to restore Duncan N. Hennen to the office bent, so far at least as his rights were concerned. of the clerk of the district court. The petition | states the appointment of the relator to the office of clerk of the district court, in 1834; the full and complete performance of his duties as clerk of the court, until May, 1837; the acknowledgment of the fidelity and capacity with which the duties of the office were performed, stated in writing by the district judge; and the appoint-answerable. Ibid. ment of another person to the office, from personal motives, and the influence of friendship, and a knowledge of the capacity of the person appointed to perform the duties of the office. The petition also states the performance of the duties of clerk of the circuit court of the eastern district of Louisiana, under the appointment of clerk of the district court, and the offer to perform those duties after his asserted removal as clerk of the district court; and that the judges of the circuit court being divided in opinion as to his right to exercise the office of clerk, the business of the circuit court was entirely suspended. The court held: The appointment of clerks of courts properly belongs to the courts of law; and a clerk of the court is one of those officers contemplated by the provision in the constitution, giving to congress the power to vest the appointment of inferior officers as they think proper. The appointing power designated by the constitution, in the latter part of the second section of the second article of the constitution, was no doubt intended to be exercised by the department of the government to which the officer to be appointed most appropriately belonged. Ex parte Duncan N. Hennen, 13 Peters, 230. 500. It cannot be admitted that it was the intention of the constitution that those offices which are denominated inferior offices should be held during life. In the absence of all constitutional or statutory provision as to the removal of such officers, it would seem to be a sound and necessary rule to consider the power of removal as incident to the power of appointment. lbid. 501. The tenure of ancient common law offices, and the rules and principles by which they are governed, have no application to the office of the clerk of a district court of the United States. The tenure, in those cases, depends in a great measure upon ancient usage. But in the United States there is no ancient usage which can apply to and govern the tenure of offices created by the constitution and laws. They are of recent origin, and must depend entirely on a just construction of our constitution and laws: and the like doctrine is held in England, where the office is not an ancient common law office, but of modern origin, under some act of parliament. In such a case, the tenure of the office is determined by the meaning and intention of the statute. Ibid. 505. A British vessel, captured by a French cruiser, and abandoned by the captors, being taken possession of by a neutral, and brought within the United States, and libelled by the salvors: Held, that the district court, having jurisdiction of the subject of salvage, must have the power of determining to whom the residue of the property is to be delivered. M'Donough v. Dannery, 3 Dall. 188; 1 Cond. Rep. 94. 506. An information against a vessel, under the act of congress of May 22d, 1794, ch. 209, on account of an illegal exportation of arms and ammunition, is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and an appeal from the district to the circuit court in such case is sustainable: it is also a civil cause, and triable without the intervention of a jury under the ninth_section of the judiciary act. United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; 1 Cond. Rep. 132. 507. A district court has jurisdiction on a libel filed for restitution of a vessel captured by a French privateer, and sent within the United States by the captors. Glass et al. v. The Betsey, 3 Dall. 6; 1 Cond. Rep. 10. 508. Where a vessel had been captured on the high seas, as prize, by a French privateer, and brought by the captors into Baltimore, and there restoration claimed by the Swedish and American owners, in the district court of the United States, the district court of Maryland has jurisdiction competent to inquire and decide whether restoration ought to be made to the claimants, or either of them, in whole or in part, consistently with the laws of nations and of the acknowledged law of the United States. Ibid. 509. The district courts of the United States, being neutral, have jurisdiction to decree restitution to the original Spanish owner, of his property captured by another belligerent, whose force has been increased in the United States, if the prize be brought infra præsidia. The Alerta v. Blas Moran, 9 Cranch, 359; 3 Cond. Rep. 425. 510. The ninth section of the judiciary act 502. The law giving the district courts the of 1789, ch. 20, marks out, not only the general power of appointing their own clerks, does not jurisdiction of the district courts, but that of the prescribe any form in which this shall be done. several district courts in relation to each other, The power vested in the court is a continuing in cases of seizures on waters of the United power; and the mere appointment of a successor | States navigable from the sea by vessels of a District Courts of the United States. C. R. 11. 518. The district courts of the United States possess all the powers of a court of admiralty, whether considered as an instance or as a prize court. Glass et al. v. The Betsey, 3 Dall. 6; 1 Cond. Rep. 10. particular burden. If made within the waters | sen v. The Vrow Christiana Magdalena, Bee's D of one district, the jurisdiction attaches to the court of that district, and the suit must be there prosecuted. The jurisdiction in these cases is given to the court of the district, not where the offence was committed, but where the seizure is made. But where the seizure is made on the high seas, the jurisdiction is conferred on no particular district court, and it may therefore be exercised by the court of any district into which the property is carried, and there proceeded against. The Merino et al., 9 Wheat. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 623. 511. In like manner if the seizure be made within the waters of a foreign nation, the cognizance of the cause is given under the general expression of the section, as to civil cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to the court of the district into which the property is conducted, and in which the prosecution is instituted. Ibid. 519. The district courts of the United States are courts of prize, and have power to carry into effect the sentences of the old continental courts of appeal in prize causes. Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 2; 2 Cond. Rep. 2. 520. In cases of seizure made on land, under the revenue laws, the district court proceeds as a court of common law, according to the course of the exchequer on informations in rem; and the trial of issues in fact may be by jury; but in cases of seizure on waters navigable from the sea, by vessels of ten or more tons burden, it proceeds as a court of admiralty, and the trial is to be by the court. Although the two jurisdic512. The district courts have jurisdiction, tions are vested in the same tribunal, they are under the slave trade acts, to determine who as distinct from each other as if they were vested are the actual captors, under a state law, made in in different tribunals, and can no more be blended pursuance of the fourth section of the slave-than a court of chancery with a court of common trade act of March 2d, 1807, ch. 77; which state law directs the proceeds of the sale of the negroes to be paid, "one moiety for the use of the commanding officers of the capturing vessel," &c. The Josefa Segunda, 10 Wheat. 312; 6 Cond. Rep. 111. law. When the libel charges a seizure on water, &c., the cause is in the admiralty, and when the evidence discloses a seizure on land, its jurisdic tion as such ceases; in such case, the libel should be dismissed or amended so as to charge a seizure on land. If the district court, under such circumstances, proceeds to direct a jury, it is ir regular, until the libel is amended. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 472. 521. The district courts of the United States having admiralty jurisdiction, may sustain a libel to carry into effect the decree of the court of appeals erected by congress under the articles of confederation. A decree of a court of admiralty in rem, is final and conclusive as to all the matters in controversy; and the grounds of the decree cannot be inquired into in another admiralty court on a libel to carry the decree into execu tion. Penhallow et al. v. Doane's Adm'rs, 3 Dall. 513. The district court of the United States derives its jurisdiction, not for any supposed possession by the officers of the court of the property proceeded against, but from the act and place of forfeiture. When once it has acquired a regular jurisdiction, no subsequent irregularity can avoid it. The Bolina, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 75. 514. A vessel was libelled in the district court for materials furnished. The claimants stated in their claim, that they had attached the vessel for materials furnished, in a state court, under state statutes, the day before the libel was filed, and prayed the advice and protection of the court in regard to their priority, under the at-54; 1 Cond. Rep. 21. tachment, and if the vessel should be decreed to be sold, that they might be first paid. Held, that this was not a submission by the claimants to the jurisdiction of the court; but that they were entitled to their election to proceed in the other court. The Robert Fulton, i Paine's C. C. | R. 620. 522. Proceedings by libel and process of arrest and attachment were instituted in the district court of the United States, for the district of Pennsylvania, against the commander and an armed vessel of the French republic, for an alleged illegal capture on the high seas of a neutral merchant vessel, the property of a citizen of the 515. The district courts have a general admi-state of Pennsylvania; the commander and the ralty jurisdiction, in suits by material men, in rem. In cases of foreign ships, or ships of another state, the maritime law gives the lien; but in cases of domestic ships, no lien is implied; but if the local law gives such a lien, it may be enforced in the district courts. Ibid. 516. When the district and state courts have a concurrent jurisdiction in rem, the right to maintain the jurisdiction attaches to that tribunal which first exercises it, and obtains possession of the thing. Ibid. 517. The district court alone has original jurisdiction in admiralty cases; the circuit court has no original, but only appellate jurisdiction. Jan armed vessel being in the port of Philadelphia. The supreme court granted a prohibition to the district judge, by which further proceedings on the libel were prevented, the district court having no jurisdiction. United States v. Richard Peters, 3 Dall. 121; 1 Cond. Rep. 60. 523. The circuit court has no cognizance of causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, except by appeal from the district court; and a writ of error thereon will be quashed. M Lellan v. The United States, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 227. 524. The laws of the United States require that a vessel which has been seized for violating the laws should be tried in the district where the District Courts of the United States. offence is committed; and certainly it would be irregular and illegal for the tribunal of a different district to act upon the case. But of this irregu- | larity no foreign court could take notice. The United States might enable the admiralty courts of one district to decide on captures made for offences committed in another district. It is an internal regulation to be expounded by our own courts, and of which the law of nations can take no notice. The possession of the thing would be in the sovereign power of the state, and it is competent to that power to give jurisdiction over it to any of its tribunals. Hudson et al. v. Guestier, 6 Crauch, 281; 2 Cond. Rep. 374. 525. An appeal lies from the district court for the territory of Orleans to the supreme court of the United States. Morgan v. Callender, 4 Cranch, 370; 2 Cond. Rep. 142. 526. The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction of decisions in the district courts, in which are united the powers of district and circuit courts; even in causes properly cognizable in the district courts: there is no distinction made by the legislature between the cases. Durousseau v. The United States, 6 Cranch, 307; 2 Cond. Rep. 381. 527. A writ of error does not lie to remove a civil cause from a circuit of the United States to the supreme court which has been carried to the circuit from the district court. United States v. Gordon et al., 7 Cranch, 287; 2 Cond. Rep. 494. 528. The courts of the United States have, under the act of 1789, ch. 20, by the delegation of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, as full jurisdiction over prize causes as the courts of admiralty of England. Brown v. The United States, 8 Cranch, 110; 3 Cond. Rep. 56. 529. If the seizing officer should refuse to institute proceedings to ascertain the forfeiture, the district court may, upon the application of the aggrieved party, compel the party to proceed to adjudication, or to abandon the seizure. If the seizure be finally adjudged wrongful, and without reasonable cause, the party aggrieved may proceed at his election, by a suit at common law, or in the admiralty, for damages for the illegal act. In that case, any remedy which the law may afford to the party, otherwise than such as might be obtained in a court of admiralty, can be prosecuted only in the state court. Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1. 530. There is no act of congress which authorizes a circuit court to issue a compulsory process to the district court for the removal of a cause from that jurisdiction, before a final judgment or decree is pronounced. If a certiorari should issue in such case, the district court may and ought to refuse obedience to the writ; and after the cause is thus removed, either party may move for a procedendo, or pursue the cause in the district court, in like manner as if the cause had not been removed. But if, instead of taking advantage of this irregularity, the defendant enters his appearance to the suit in the circuit court, takes defence, and pleads to issue, it is too late, after verdict, to object to the irregularity. The cause will be considered as an original one in the circuit court, made so by consent of parties, even though no declaration de novo should have been filed in the circuit court. Patterson v. The United States, 2 Wheat. 221; 4 Cond. Rep. 98. 531. In cases of seizure made on land, under the revenue laws, the district court proceeds as a court of common law, according to the course of the exchequer on informations in rem, and the trial of issues in fact must be by jury; but in cases of seizure on waters navigable from the sea, by vessels of ten or more tons burden, it proceeds as a court of admiralty, and the trial is to be by the court. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 472. 532. The district judge cannot sit in the circuit court in a cause brought by writ of error from the district to the circuit court; and the cause cannot, in such a case, be brought from the circuit to the supreme court upon a certificate of division of opinion of the judges. United States v. Lancaster, 5 Wheat. 434; 4 Cond. Rep. 720. 533. A circuit court has no authority to issue a certiorari or other compulsory process to the district court, for the removal of a cause from the district court until a final judgment or decree is pronounced. In such a case, the district judge may and ought to refuse obedience to the circuit court, and either party may move the circuit court for a procedendo after the transcript of the record is removed into that court, or may pursue the cause in the district court as if it had not been removed. Patterson v. The United States, 2 Wheat. 221; 4 Cond. Rep. 98. 534. Under the act of March 2d, 1809, ch. 198, where causes have been certified into the circuit court, on account of the disability of the district judge, and that disability terminates by his death, the circuit court must remand the causes that have been thus certified, to the district court. Ex parte United States, 1 Gallis. 338. 535. The United States courts of admiralty, and of chancery, are courts of record. De Lovio v. Boit et al., 2 Gallis. 398. 536. The district court, as a court of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, may entertain suits for all torts, damages, and unlawful seizures at sea; and as a court of revenue, it may entertain suits for the trial of property seized for violations of municipal laws: and, as incident to this jurisdiction, it may compel a re-delivery of the property, and award damages for any loss of or injury to it. It may compel a seizor to proceed to adjudication as it does a captor. Burke v. Trevitt, 1 Mason, 96. 537. The district court of the United States has jurisdiction of questions of prizes and its incidents, without claiming the same under the provisions of the prize act of 12th June, 1812, ch. 430. The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546; 4 Cond. Rep. 322. 538. When a seizure is made within the limits of a judicial district, the district court of that district has exclusive original cognizance thereof; and if the property is brought into another district, it will be remitted to the proper district. But the cognizance of seizures on the high seas is concurrent in all the district courts, and pro Circuit Court of the District of Columbia. perly vests in the court of that district into which the property is brought. The Abby, 1 Mason, 360. 539. The jurisdiction of the district courts, derived from that clause in the judiciary act declaring that they shall 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 burden, within their respective districts, and of all seizures on land or other waters than as aforesaid made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures under the laws of the United States," does not extend to cases of libel for seizures made in another district than that where the proceedings are instituted; but the district court of the district where the seizure is made, has exclusive jurisdiction. The Little Ann, Paines' C. C. R. 40. 540. 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 a state authority, which by taking the thing seized out of the hands of the United States' officer, might obstruct the exercise of this jurisdiction, is unlawful. Slocum v. Mayberry et al., 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1. 541. The courts of the United States have exclusive cognizance of questions of forfeiture upon all seizures made under the laws of the United States. Gelston et al. v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246; 4 Cond. Rep. 244. 542. As where a district court refuses to proceed to judgment, a mandamus lies to compel it. But a mandamus will not lie to a district court to compel it to expunge amendments improperly made in the record returned to the circuit court, on a writ of error. Wise v. Withers, 3 Cranch, 331; 1 Cond. Rep. 552. 543. A district court of the United States, performing the appropriate duty of a district court, is not sitting as a circuit court; because it possesses the powers of a circuit court also. Southwick et al. v. The Postmaster-General, 2 Peters, 442. 544. The district court has authority, as an admiralty court, to deliver property on bail, and may render summary judgment on the bail bond. The Alligator, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 145. 545. The district court has no authority, after appeal, to bail or sell the property. The Grotius, 1 Gallis, C. C. R. 503. 548. A contract for wages on a voyage be. tween ports of adjoining states, and on the tide water of a river or bay, is within the jurisdiction of the district court, and may be enforced by a suit in rem, in the admiralty, in the district court. Smith v. The Pekin, Gilpin's D. C. Rep. 203. 549. The district court must be governed in its decisions by the maritime code we possessed previous to the revolution, as well as by the particular laws since established by our own government. The Catharine, 1 Adm. Decis. 104. 550. If a final decree of the district court be not appealed from, no appeal lies upon any subsequent proceedings, upon the summary judg ment rendered on a bond for the appraised value, or upon an admiralty stipulation taken in the cause to enforce the decree. The proceedings in such cases, and the awarding of execution, are incidents exclusively belonging to the court in possession of the principal cause. The Brig Hollen, 1 Mason, 431. CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 551. The circuit court for the District of Columbia has jurisdiction, upon motion, to quash an inquisition taken under the act to authorize the making a turnpike road from Mason's causeway to Alexandria. Curtis v. Alexandria and Georgetown Turnpike Co., 6 Cranch, 232; 2 Cond. Rep. 357. 552. The act of congress of 27th February, 1801, concerning the District of Columbia, directs that writs of error shall be prosecuted in the same manner, under the same regulations, and the same proceedings shall be had thereon as is provided in cases of writs of error on judgments or appeals upon orders or decrees rendered in the circuit courts of the United States. The United States v. Hooe and others, 1 Cranch, 318; 1 Cond. Rep. 322. 553. The acts of congress of the 27th February and 3d March, 1801, concerning the District of Columbia, have not changed the laws of Maryland and Virginia, adopted by congress as the laws of that district, further than a change of jurisdiction rendered a change necessary. United States v. Simms, 1 Cranch, 252; 1 Cond. Rep. 305. 554. Fines, forfeitures, and penalties, arising from a breach of those laws, are to be sued for and recovered in the same manner as before the change of jurisdiction, mutatis mutandis. Ibid. 546. No appeal lies, under the act of congress, 555. The supreme court of the United States by any party, from a decree of the district court, has no jurisdiction of causes brought before it, nless on his part the matter in dispute exceeds upon a certificate of division of opinion of the the sum of fifty dollars. Shirley v. Titus, 1 Sum-judges of the circuit court for the District of ner's C. C. R. 447. Columbia. The appellate jurisdiction, in respect to that court, extends only to its final judgments and decrees. Ross v. Triplett, 3 Wheat. 600; 4 Cond. Rep. 351. 556. An appeal or writ of error lies for the judgment of the circuit court of the District of Columbia, to the supreme court, where the Bank of Alexandria is plaintiff, and the judgment of the circuit court is in its favour, notwithstanding the clause in its charter to the contrary. Young |