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.[1] And the district court in Maine district shall,
Maine district court.
[Obsolete.]
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.
Circuit courts original cognizance where the matter in dispute exceeds five hundred dollars. 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.[2] And shall have
- ↑ By an act passed February 24, 1807, the Circuit Court jurisdiction of the District Court of Kentucky was abolished.
- ↑ 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. 623.
The courts of the United States have not jurisdiction, unless it appears by the record that it belongs
