ORIGINAL JE quere as to forfeitures? It does not appear, however, ever to have been decided, whether this act embraces penalties and forfeitures, so as to give the circuit court jurisdiction of suits brought for their re- penalties and covery by the United States, or their officers, under an act of congress, over which, it will be observed, this act did not extend the jurisdiction of the district court, as it was before unlimited as well as exclusive.1 States may own name act of con It may be remarked here, that under this act, the United United States are entitled to sue in the circuit court, unless the district sue in their court has exclusive jurisdiction, in all cases2 where they can without an sue at all; and of course few questions of jurisdiction can arise. gress, But a very important question was raised as to their right to sue, without an act of congress for the purpose: but the supreme court declared that they entertained no doubt on the point; and that the United States could sue on all contracts made with them, including bills of exchange endorsed to the treasurer of the United States for their use, unless a different mode were provided by law.1 in cases of In cases of violation of patent rights under either of the Jurisdiction acts of 17935 or 1800,6 original jurisdiction is given to the patents. circuit court by the following section of the last mentioned act. "Where any patent shall be, or shall have been, granted pursuant to this or the above mentioned act, and any person, without the consent of the patentee, his or her executors, 1 And see 12 Wheat. Rep. 486. 498. 2 Dall. Rep. 365. 4 Ib. 342. but see 1 Gall. Rep. 177. 4. 2 This is on the supposition that the qualification "under the authority of any act of congress,' applies to the officer only, and not to the United States, which is supposed to be the correct construction, as well from the section itself as from a comparision of it with the ninth section of the act 33 Wheat. Rep. 179. and see 4 12 Wheat. 143. Act of Feb. 21. Ls. U. S. 300. "Act of April 17. Ls. U. S. 752. RISDICTION. ORIGINAL JU administrators or assigns, first obtained, in writing, shall make, devise, use or sell the thing whereof the exclusive right is secured to the said patentee by such patent, such person, so of fending, shall forfeit and pay to the said patentee, his executors, administrators or assigns, a sum equal to three times the actual damage sustained by such patentee, his executors, administrators or assigns, from or by reason of such offence, which sum shall and may be recovered, by action on the case, founded on this and the above mentioned act, in the circuit court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof." Provisions as to practice in tents. The following section of the act of 1793, contains some procases of pa- visions regulating the practice in actions under the above section. "The defendant in such action shall be permitted to plead the general issue, and give this act, and any special matter, of which notice in writing may have been given, to the plaintiff or his attorney, thirty days before trial, in evidence, tending to prove that the specification filed by the plaintiff does not contain the whole truth relative to his discovery, or that it contains more than is necessary to produce the described effect, which concealment or addition shall fully appear to have been made for the purpose of deceiving the public, or that the thing thus secured by patent, was not originally discovered by the patentee, but had been in use, or had been described in some public work, anterior to the supposed discovery of the patentee, or that he had surreptitiously obtained a patent for the discovery of another person; in either of which cases, judgment shall be rendered for the defendant, with costs, and the patent shall be declared void." Circuit court has exclusive in cases of semb. Where a suit was brought in the supreme court of the state jurisdiction for the infringement of a patent right, and the defendant pleadpatents, ed to the jurisdiction of the court, the court sustained the plea, on the ground that the circuit court must have exclusive jurisdiction, for the reasons, that the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the laws of the United States, and as the act declares that suits on patents 7 Ib. s. 3. 3 s. 6. Ls. U. S. 302. shall be brought in the circuit court, and gives the court power 101 to declare the patent void." And it has been held that for the same reasons a patent right could not even be pleaded or set up as a defence or justification to an action in a state court, but that the party must be sent to the circuit court in order to test the validity of his patent, and seek the competent redress.9 From the principles of these decisions, it would seem that a state court can never directly or indirectly inquire into the value or validity of a patent. 11 ORIGINAL JU RISDICTION. in case of and in case A subsequent act10 gives the court original jurisdiction in all Jurisdiction cases arising under the acts,11 securing to authors or inventors copy right; the property in their writings, inventions and discoveries, in- of patents cluding, as will be seen by a reference to those acts, as well suits for forfeitures as for damages.12 The act is as follows: "The circuit courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, as well in equity as at law, of all actions, suits, controversies and cases arising under any law of the United States, granting or confirming to authors or inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings, inventions and discoveries; and upon any bill in equity, filed by any party aggrieved in any such cases, shall have authority to grant injunctions, according to the course and principles of courts of equity, to prevent the violation of the rights of any authors or inventors, secured to them by any laws of the United States, on such terms and conditions as the said courts may deem fit and reasonable; Provided, however, that from all judgments and decrees of any circuit courts, rendered in the premises, a writ of error or appeal, as the case may require, shall lie to the supreme court of the United States, in the same enlarged. 101 7 Johns. Rep. 144. 99 John. Rep. 567. 582. U. S. 94. copyright acts. Act of 10 Act of 15 Feb. 1819. Ls. U. of 29 April, 1802. Ls. U. S. 866. S. 1719. 11 Act of April 29, 1802. L. U. S. 866. Act of 31 May, 1790. L. patent acts, ante. 12 And quere whether it does not include proceedings of any kind? RISDICTION. ORIGINAL JU- manner, and under the same circumstances, as is now provided by law in other judgments and decrees of such circuit courts." Jurisdiction under the The act of 1794,13 prohibiting the slave trade, gave the slave laws. circuit court as well as district courts cognizance of forfeitures incurred under its provisions, and the act of 1800 declares, that "the district and circuit courts of the United States shall have cognizance of all acts and offences against the prohibitions herein contained;" certain penalties being affixed to the prohibited acts.14 And perhaps the circuit court has jurisdiction, as well as the district court, of suits for forfeitures under the act of 1803, passed for the same object,15 as it has under that of 1807,16 but does not appear to have any under that of 1818.17 Jurisdiction under act re The act regulating passenger ships, gives the circuit as well gulating pas- as district courts original jurisdiction in actions for penalties incurred by a ship's carrying more than the number of passengers allowed. 18 senger ships. Jurisdiction in cases of debentures. The following provision of the collection law of 179919 gives the circuit court and district courts original jurisdiction in actions by assignees upon debentures against the assignors or endorsers. "For the purpose of maintaining the credit of the said debentures, it is hereby declared, that the debentures, to be issued as aforesaid, shall be assignable by delivery and endorsement of the parties who may receive the same; and in all cases where payment shall be refused by the collectors of the districts where the said debentures were granted, in conse 13 Act of March 22. Ls. U. S. 319. 14 Act of 10 May, 1800. s. 5. Ls. U. S. 780. 15 Act of 28 Feb. s. 1. Ls. U. S. 886. 16 Act of March 2. Ls. U. S. 17 Act of 20 April. Ls. U. S. 1698. 18 Act of 2 March, 1819. s. 1. Ls. U. S. 1723. 19 Act of 2 March. Ls. U. S. 645. RISDICTION. quence of the non payment of the duties which accrued on the ORIGINAL JUimportation of the goods for which such debentures were issued, for a longer time than three days after the same shall have been due and payable, said refusal to be proved in the same manner as in the case of non-payment of bills of exchange, it shall be lawful for the possessor or assignee of any debenture, upon which payment has been refused as aforesaid, to institute and maintain, in the proper circuit or district court of the United States, a suit against the person to whom such debenture was originally granted, or against any endorser thereof, whereby to recover the amount of such debenture, with interest, at the rate or six per centum per annum, from the time when the same became due and payable. And in all suits for the recovery of money, upon debentures issued by the collec. tors of the customs as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the court in which such suits shall be pending, to grant judgment at the return term, unless the defendant or defendants shall, in open court, exhibit some plea, on oath or affirmation, by which the court shall be satisfied that a continuance, until the next succeeding term, is necessary to the attainment of justice; in which case, and not otherwise, a continuance until the next term may be granted." in actions bank of the parties. By the provisions of the act incorporating the bank of the Jurisdiction United States, the circuit court has original jurisdiction, con- where the currently with the state courts, of all actions in which the bank U. s. are are plaintiffs or defendants.20 Notwithstanding the plain terms in which this law allows the bank to sue in the circuit court, its meaning has been questioned; and its constitutionality was also most strongly contested in the supreme court of the United States, on the ground that suits to which the bank is a party, are not "cases arising under the laws of the United States." The court, however, decided in favour of its constitutionality.2 20 Act of 10 April, 1816. s. 7. 21 9 Wheat. Rep. 738. Ls. U. S. 1551. |