to be the same as used in the Supreme Courts of the States. causes of equity, and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,[1] shall be according to the course of the civil law; and the rates of fees Fees to be the same as in the Supreme Courts of the States. the same as are or were last allowed by the states respectively in the court exercising supreme jurisdiction in such causes.[2] Provided, That on judgments in any of the cases aforesaid where different kinds of executions are issuable in succession, a capias ad satisfaciendum in the first instance and be at liberty to pursue the same until a tender of the debt and costs in gold or silver shall be made.
Limitation. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue in force until the end of the next session of Congress, and no longer.
Approved, September 29, 1789.
Statute Ⅰ.Sept. 29, 1789.
Chap. XXII.—An Act to explain and amend an Act, intituled “An Act for registering and clearing Vessels, regulating the Coasting Trade, and for other purposes.”
Act of Sept. 1, 1789, ch. 11.
Repealed by
Act of February 18, 1793, ch. 8.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That when any goods, wares or merchandise
Goods unladen by permit and transported to a landing in the same district, to be accompanied with a certificate from the inspector or other proper officer.
of foreign growth or manufacture, by permit and shall be unladen from any ship or vessel in virtue of a permit obtained for that purpose, and shall be put into a craft or vessel, with intent to be transported to a landing within the same district, it shall be the duty of be accompanied the inspector, or other officer attending the unlading of such goods, ware and merchandise, to deliver to the master or commander of every such craft or vessel, a certificate of such goods, wares and merchandise other proper having been duly entered, and a permit granted therefor; and such certificate shall contain a description of all the packages with their marks and numbers, and shall authorize the transportation and landing of the same, at any landing within the same district, without any further fee or permit, any thing in the said recited act to the contrary notwithstanding.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That so much of the twenty-second section of the said recited act, as exempts vessels of less than twenty,
- ↑ The act regulating processes in the courts of the United States, provides that the forms and modes of proceeding in the courts of equity, and in those of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be according to the principles, rules, and usages which belong to courts of equity, and to courts of admiralty, respectively, as contradistinguished from the courts of common law, subject, however, to alterations by the courts. This act has been generally understood to adopt the principles, rules, and usages of the court of chancery in England. Mauro v. Almedia, 10 Wheat. 473; 6 Cond. Rep. 190.
- ↑ The compensation to clerks of courts are regulated by the acts of March 3, 1791, chap. 22, sec. 1; act of May 8, 1792, chap. 36, sec. 3; act of February 28, 1799, chap. 19, sec. 3; act of April 18, 1814, chap. 79; act of March 8, 1824, chap. 26; act of March 3, 1841, chap. 16. Compensation of Marshals, act of March 3, 1791, chap. 22, sec. 1; act of May 8, 1792, chap. 36, sec. 3; act of February 28, 1799, chap. 19, sec. 2; act of April 18, 1814, chap. 79; act of March 8, 1824, chap. 26; act of March 3, 1841, chap. 16
issuing out of the courts of the United States, lands and other property not thus subject by the State laws in force at that time. Bank of the United States v. Halsted, 10 Wheat. 51; 6 Cond. Rep. 22.
See Fullerton v. The Bank of the United States, 1 Peters, 604. Yeaton v. Lenox, 8 Peters, 123. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300.
The process act of 1828, expressly adopts the mesne process and modes of proceeding in suits at common law, then existing in the highest State court, under the State laws, which of course included all the regulations of the State law as to bail, and exemption of the party from arrest and imprisonment. In regard also to write of execution, and other final process, and “the proceedings thereupon,” it adopts an equally comprehensive language, and declares they shall be the same as were then used in the courts of the State. Beers v. Huighton, 9 Peters, 329. The Lessee of Walden v. Creig’s heirs, 14 Peters, 147. The United States v. Knight, 14 Peters, 401. Amis v. Smith, 16 Peters, 303.
So far as the acts of Congress have adopted the forms of process and modes of proceeding and pleading in the State courts, or have authorize the courts to opt them, and have actually adopted them, they are obligatory; and no further. But no court of the United States is authorized to adopt by rule any provision of State laws which are repugnant to, or incompatible with the positive enactment of Congress upon the jurisdiction, or practice, or proceedings of such courts. Keary et al. v. The Farmers and Mechanics Bank of Memphis, 16 Peters, 89. Duncan v. Darst, 17 Peters, 209.
