§ 14. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction both at law and equity in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State is a party,' except where a citizen of the same State is a party, when it has no jurisdiction." The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over controversies to which a State is a party is exclusive, except as regards controversies between a State and its citizens, or between a State and citizens of other States. In suits to which a State is a party the practice in equity is followed. The Supreme Court has exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits against ambassadors or other public ministers, or their domestics or domestic servants, as a court of law can have 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 is a party.

A State may file a bill against another State to settle and establish a disputed boundary. In such a suit the United States has an interest in the controversy, and the attorney-general on his application may intervene, appear on behalf of the United States, adduce proofs and be heard in argument without making the United States a party in the technical sense of the term; but he has no right to interfere in the pleading or evidence or admissions of either of the States; and in such a suit the

made to appear to said court upon petition that it will be in the interest of justice to allow such appeal."

The determination of appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, now vested in the general term of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in pursuance of the provisions of section 780 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to the District of Columbia, shall hereafter be and the same is hereby vested in the Court of Appeals created by this act; and, in addition, any party aggrieved by a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in any inference case may appeal therefrom to said Court of Appeals." Ibid., § 228; 27 St. at L 436, § 9.

§ 14. 1 Const., art. III.

2 California v. Southern Pac. Co., 157 U. S. 229.

3 U. S. R. S., § 687.

4 Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 266. 5 U. S. R. S., § 687.

6 New Jersey v. New York, 3 Pet. 461; s. c., 5 Pet. 284; s. c., 6 Pet. 323; Massachusetts v. Rhode Island, 12 Pet. 755; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 13 Pet. 23; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 15 Pet. 233; s. c., 4 How. 591; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Virginia v. West Virginia, 11 Wall. 39; Missouri v. Iowa, 10 How. 1; Alabama v. Georgia, 23 How. 505; Missouri v. Kentucky, 11 Wall. 395.

judgment cannot be either for or against the United States." Written authority from the governor of a State is sufficient to authorize a suit on behalf of the State. All process of the court is in the name of the President of the United States." In a suit by a State against another State the service of a subpœna sixty days before the return day is sufficient.10 Service should be made on both the governor and the attorney-general." In one case a subpoena served upon the governor by leaving a copy at his house and there showing the original to the secretary of state was held sufficient. 12

The filing of a pleading by the attorney-general of a State who has been admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of the United States is an appearance on behalf of such State. The rules concerning the time for pleading in suits between individuals do not apply to suits between the different States.14 The State of Massachusetts was allowed to answer an amended bill of the State of Rhode Island one year after the filing of such amended bill.15 If the State fail to appear, or if the State withdraw its appearance, no coercive measures will be taken to compel its appearance, but the complainant may be allowed to proceed ex parte.16 A State cannot maintain a bill in equity to protect a purely political right." Nor, it seems, except to abate a nuisance,1 to redress the wrongs of a part of her citizens.19 A State cannot obtain an order or judgment compelling the governor of another State to return a fugitive from labor or justice.20 In a suit to settle a disputed boundary, the most appropriate mode of proceeding is by bill and cross-bill." In suits against a State the practice is very liberal, and the utmost lib

7 Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478.

8 Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 719. 9 Supreme Court Rule 5; New Jersey v. New York, 6 Pet. 323.

10 Supreme Court Rule 5; Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419; Grayson v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 320; New Jersey v. New York, 3 Pet. 461; s. C., 5 Pet. 284; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66.

11 Supreme Court Rule 5.

12 Huger v. South Carolina, 3 Dall. 339.

13 New Jersey v. New York, 6 Pet.

erality is exercised by the court in the correction of slips of practice or errors.22

A State cannot sue one of its own citizens in the Supreme Court of the United States.23 The allegation that a defendant corporation is "a body politic in the law of and doing business in the State of California" is insufficient to establish that the defendant is a California corporation, and is insufficient to show that the defendant is not a Pennsylvania corporation.24 A State cannot sue another State to collect bonds and coupons of the defendant which have been assigned to the plaintiff by its own citizens in order that it may collect them and pay the proceeds to the assignors.25 A suit by a State to collect a judg ment for penalties obtained in one of its own courts against a foreign corporation cannot be maintained in the Supreme Court of the United States. A State may sue for an injunction against the collection by citizens of other States of certain bonds of the United States which are the property of such State, and for the delivery to it of such bonds, and for a declaration that the contract under which the defendants claim a title to such bonds is void.27 A State may maintain a bill against citizens of other States to enforce its title to a railroad.28 The fact that a State is a stockholder in a corporation by or against which a suit is brought does not make the State a party to such suit.29

30

26

The court considers the former practice of the courts of Chancery and of King's Bench, in England, as affording outlines for its practice. It has made a few rules regulating the same. It is the regular practice to obtain leave of the court upon a motion, which is usually heard ex parte, but of which, under special circumstances, the court will require notice to be served upon the proposed defendant, before an original bill in equity is filed in the Supreme Court.32

22 Iowa v. Illinois, 151 U. S. 238; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 13 Pet. 23.

26 Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265.

27 Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 741

23 Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 743. 10 Wall. 553.

24 Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 10 Wall. 553.

25 New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76

28 Florida v. Anderson, 91 U. S. 667. 29 Bank of U. S. v. Planters' Bank of Ga., 9 Wheat. 904.

30 Supreme Court Rule 3.

31 See Appendix.

32 Georgia v. Grant, 6 Wall 241.

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is explained in the final chapter of this work. Incidental to such appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has power in certain limited cases to issue writs of prohibition," mandamus," habeas corpus, scire facias, and other writs.36

35

-

§ 14a. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of Appeal.There are nine Circuit Courts of Appeal, one in each circuit.' Their jurisdiction is exclusively appellate, and will be explained in the concluding chapter of this work. Incidental to such appellate jurisdiction, they have the power to issue writs of scire facias and all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which are necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.? § 15. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States. The Circuit Courts of the United States have original cognizance, concurrently with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners; suits in which there is a controversy between citizens of different States, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid; or a controversy between citizens of the same State, claiming land under grants of different States, or a controversy between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens or subjects, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid;1 and, irrespective of the value of the matter in dispute, of cases commenced by the United States or by direction of any officer thereof against national banks, or cases for winding up the affairs of any such bank;2 and of all suits authorized by law

33 U. S. R. S., § 688. See infra, § 361, 362.

34 U. S. R. S., § 688. See infra, SS 361, 363, 364.

2 U. S. R. S., § 716; 26 St. at L. 829,

§ 12. See infra, §§ 361–368.

§ 15. 124 St. at L., ch. 373, p. 552. 224 St. at L., ch. 373, § 4, p. 552; 30

35 U. S. R. S., § 751. See infra, §§ 366, St. at L., p. 553. See Armstrong v. 367, 368.

Ettlesohn, 36 Fed. R. 209: Armstrong

36 U. S. R. S., § 688. See infra, §§ 361, v. Trautmann, 36 Fed. R. 275; Mc

365.

§ 14a. 126 St. at L. 829, § 12.

Conville v. Gilmour, 36 Fed. R. 277.

to be brought by any person to redress the deprivation, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, of any right, privilege, or immunity, secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right secured by any law providing for equal rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, whether such suit was originally brought in one of them or removed there according to law from a State court; of suits against the United States, to collect claims of more than $1,000 and not exceeding $10,000, for money only, founded upon the Constitution of the United States or any law of Congress, except for pensions, or upon any contract, expressed or implied, with the government of the United States, except to recover fees, salary or compensation for official services, or to recover damages, liquidated or unliquidated, in cases not sounding in tort in respect of which claims the plaintiff would be entitled to redress against the United States, in a court of law, equity, or admiralty, if the United States were suable, except war claims, and except other claims, which, before March 3, 1887, were rejected or reported on adversely by any court, department, or commission authorized to hear and determine the same; of suits in equity brought by a tenant in common or a joint tenant for the partition of land in cases where the United States is one of such tenants in common or joint tenants; of proceedings to condemn for national public uses land within their respective districts; of suits to recover penalties under the act forbidding the importation of persons under a contract to perform labor;9 of suits to enforce and prevent violations of the acts to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints,10 the act to prevent the un

7

U. S. R. S., § 629; 24 St. at L., ch. 376, § 5. See Carter v. Greenhow,

114 U. S. 317.

430 St. at L. 495; Strong v. U. S., 93 Fed. R. 257; U. S. v. Kelly (C. C. A.), 97 Fed. R. 460; 24 St. at L. 505; U. S. v. Jones, 131 U. S. 1. See infra, § 36. 5 Bodemüller v. U. S., 39 Fed. R. 437. 624 St. at L. 505: 30 St. at L. 495; U.S. v. Jones, 131 U. S. 1. See infra, § 36.

730 St. at L. 416.

825 St. at L., ch. 728, p. 357. See infra, § 381.

923 St. at L. 332; U. S. v. Mexican Nat. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R. 269. See U. S. v. Rector of the Church of the Holy Trinity, 36 Fed. R. 303; U. S. v. Craig, 28 Fed. R. 795; 26 St. at L. 1084.

10 26 St. at L. 209; U. S. v. Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co., 43 Fed. R. 898; s. c., 46 Fed. R. 432. See American Biscuit & Mfg. Co. v. Klitz, 44 Fed. R. 721, 725, 726.