or vice consul, shall be a party.[1] 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. Sup. Court appellate jurisdiction. 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[2] Writs of Prohibition. and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition[3] to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writ of mandamus,[4] Of Mandamus. 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.
Courts may issue writs scire facias, habeas corpus, &c.
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,[5] and all other writs not specially provided for- ↑ The United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467; 6 Cond. Rep. 894. Davis v. Packard, 6 Peters, 41.
- ↑ 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; 1 Cond. 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; 6 Cond. Rep. 462. Menard v. Aspasia, 5 Peters, 505. Worcester v. The State of Georgia, 6 Peters, 615. The United States v. Moore, 5 Cranch, 159; 1 Cond. Rep. 480.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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 authorize 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.
