exclusive Exclusive cognizance of crimes and offences cognizable under the laws of the United States. cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under United States,[1] 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 to be arrested in one district for trial in another on any civil suit. no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another, in any civil action before a circuit or district court.[2] And no civil suit shall he 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 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 noteActions on promissory notes. or other chose in action in favour of an assignee, unless a promissory 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.[3] Circuit courts shall also have appellate jurisdiction. And the circuit courts shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the district courts under the regulations and restrictions herein after provided.[4]
Matter in dispute above 500 dollars. 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 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, exclusive of costs, to be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court; Removal of causes from state courts. 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, Special bail.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.[5] And any attach-
- ↑ 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 Gillis’ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Bean v. Smith, 2 Mason’s C. C. R. 252. Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheat. 146; 5 Cond. Rep. 44. Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537; 5 Cond. Rep 666.
- ↑ Smith v. Jackson, Paine’s C. C. R. 453.
- ↑ 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;
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. Chappedeleine 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 Ætna Ins. Com., 3 Mason, C. C. R. 158. Kitchen v. Sullivan et al., 4 Wash. C. C. R. 54. Briggs v. French, 2 Sumner’s C. C. R. 252.
