Attachment of goods holden to final judgment.
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.
Title of land where value exceeds 500 dollars.
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, end shell 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,
If in Maine and Kentucky, where causes are removable.
[Obsolete.]
or if in the district of Maine, to the court next to be holden therein; or if in Kentucky 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 before-mentioned 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 ground of his claim;
Issues in fact by jury.
and the trial of issues in fact in the circuit courts shall, in all suits, except those of equity, and of admiralty, and maritime jurisdiction, be by jury.[1]
Supreme court exclusive jurisdiction. Sec. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a 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.[2] Proceedings against public ministers.
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,- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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, 651. 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.
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 In 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.
