Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

§ 206. "Between a State, or citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects."-This clause completes the general jurisdiction given to the Federal courts in cases of diverse citizenship.

The courts of the United States have jurisdiction where both parties to the suit are aliens.90 The fact that an alien is a resident in some State of the United States, will not prevent the United States from taking jurisdiction in suits between this alien and a citizen of the State in which he resides.91 United States courts also have jurisdiction over suits between citizen: of the same State when the plaintiffs are nominal plaintiffs for the use of an alien."2 In suits brought under this clause, a citizen of the United States must be described as a citizen of some particular State. A foreign sovereign may sue in the United States courts on a public claim.**

In the case of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia9 it was decided that the term "foreign State" did not include Indian tribes. It was in this case that the term "domestic dependent nations" was applied to the Indian tribes by Chief Justice Marshall.

§ 207. Grants of judicial power to United States courts not self-executing. The provisions in the United States Constitution granting judicial powers to the United States courts are not self-executing and legislation by Congress is necessary to enable the United States courts to exercise their judicial powers."

§ 208. State laws administered in the United States courts. -In the determination of cases which come before them the Federal courts are often compelled to resort to other than Federal law. In cases not involving any strictly Federal ques

[blocks in formation]

tion the courts of the United States are constantly applying the laws of the different States.

The Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, provided that the laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States otherwise require, or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they applied. This provision was limited to the common law side of Federal jurisdiction, and the United States have always had their own system of admiralty and equity procedure, while following the common law procedure and practice of the State in which the inferior Federal court might happen to be sitting.

With regard to substantive law, the laws of the States to be enforced in Federal courts probably include both statutory and common law, but the decisions, even of the Supreme Court itself, are not in entire harmony on this latter point. In Swift v. Tyson it was held that the United States courts were not obliged to regard the decisions of the State courts, the Court saying: "They are at most only evidence of what the laws are, and are not of themselves laws. They are often re-examined, reversed and qualified by the courts themselves, whenever they are found to be either defective, or ill-founded, or otherwise incorrect." The decision was strongly reaffirmed in Brooklyn City and Newton Railroad Company v. National Bank of the Republic of New York,98 where the Court held that the courts of the United States in determining questions of general commercial law, are not controlled by the decisions of a State court, even in an action instituted by a national bank located in the State rendering such decision, against one of its citizens, upon a negotiable note there executed and payable.

Perhaps not at variance with these decisions but at least presenting a different aspect of the question is the case of Detroit v. Osborne, where the United States courts were asked to apply the laws of the State of Michigan upon the liability of municipal corporation for defective sidewalks. On this point the Court said: "This contention suggests two inquiries: first, What is the settled law of Michigan? and, second, If it be as claimed, " 16 Peters, 1.

99 102 U. S. 14.

** * *

is it binding upon the Federal courts? The second inquiry must be answered in the affirmative. If it is a matter of local law, that law is obligatory upon the Federal courts. ** * The question presented by it is not one of general commercial law; it is purely local in its significance and extent. It invokes simply a consideration of the powers and liabilities granted and imposed by legislative action upon cities within the State. While this court has been strenuous to uphold the supremacy of Federal law, and the interpretation placed upon it by the Federal courts, it has been equally strenuous to uphold the decisions by State courts of questions of purely local law. There should be, in all matters of a local nature, but one law within the State; and that law is not what this court might determine, but what the Supreme Court of the State has determined."

The State laws which the Federal courts will recognize and enforce above all others are those relative to real property."9 The Federal courts will also generally follow the decision of the State courts, as to the constitutionality100 or interpretation of a statute.101 The United States courts, however, will not adopt a later decision of a State court if a contract has been entered into, or other act done in reliance on an earlier inconsistent interpretation.102

The United States courts only enforce the principles of the common law (except those embodied in the Constitution or statutes of the United States) under this power to apply the laws of the several States. There is no such thing as a Federal common law system.

§ 209. United States courts.-At the present time there are three different grades of regular inferior United States courts, viz., district courts, circuit courts, and circuit courts of appeal. The two former were first established by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the third by the act of 1891. There are

[blocks in formation]

seventy-seven judicial districts in the United States, each with a district court and a district judge.103 These seventy-seven districts are grouped into nine circuits, in each of which there is a Circuit Court and a Circuit Court of Appeals.104 Each judge of the Supreme Court is assigned to one of these circuits,105 and is required to attend a term of the Circuit Court in each district of the circuit at least once every two years.' 106 There are at least two circuit judges in each circuit.107 By various special acts the number of judges in the first, third, fifth, sixth and ninth circuits have been increased to three, and in the second, seventh and eighth circuits to four.108 Circuit courts can be held by the circuit justice, or by the circuit judge of the circuit, or by the district judge of the district sitting alone, or by any two of the said judges sitting together.109 The

103 The States of New York and Texas each contain four districts; Alabama, Illinois, Tennessee and Pennsylvania each contain three districts; those of Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Washington, two each; while the remaining twenty-three States each constitute a single district.

104 The different States and Territories are assigned to the different circuits, as follows:

First-Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine.

Second Vermont, Connecticut and New York.

Third-Pennsylvania, New Jer-
sey and Delaware.
Fourth - Maryland, Virginia,
West Virginia, North Carolina and
South Carolina.

[ocr errors]

Fifth-Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Rev. Stats. 604.

105 Rev. States. 606.
106 Rev. Stats. 610.

107 Rev. Stats. 607 and act of March 3, 1891, Ch. 571.

108 See 24 U. S. Stats. 492; 30 U. S. Stats.; 28 U. S. Stats. 643; 28 U. S. Stats. 115; 28 U. S. Stats. 665, out other acts.

109 Rev. Stats. 609; Ex parte Kaine, 10 N. Y. Legal Obs. 257; Fed. Cas. No. 7598; Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 421; In re Circuit Court, 1 Dill, 1; Fed. Cases, No. 2728.

Chief Justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court assigned to each circuit, and the circuit judges within each circuit, and the several district judges within each circuit, shall be competent to sit as judges of the Circuit Court of Appeals in their respective circuits. The full court consists of three of the above-named judges, the district judges sitting in case of absence of judges of higher rank. In case a judge of the Supreme Court is in attendance he acts as presiding judge, otherwise this position is filled by the Circuit Court judges in order of the seniority of their respective commissions.110

The respective jurisdictions of the various inferior courts of the United States are as follows.111

§ 210. District courts.-The district courts of the United States have jurisdiction:

First. Of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas, the punishment of which is not capital, except in the cases mentioned in section fifty-four hundred and twelve (Revised Statutes), title "Crimes."112

Second. Of all cases arising under the act for the punishment of piracy, when no Circiut Court is held in the district of such court. 113

Third. Of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under any law of the United States.114

110 26 U. S. Stats., Sec. III., Clause I. and II.

111 Rev. Stats. 563.

112 The question of the extent of jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States is generally one of statutory rather than constitutional law. Important cases on this question involving constitutional law have already been considered; other cases on the jurisdiction of these courts will be merely noted in connection with each clause of the statutes without comment. On the present clause see, U. S. v. Randolph, Fed. Cas.

114

No. 16120; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Wood & M. 401, Fed. Cas. No. 15, 867; Ex parte Waterman, Dist. Ct. N. Y., 33 Fed. Rep. 29; United States v. Lancaster, 44 Fed. Rep. 896; Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371; Fox v. Ohio, 5 Howard, 410; United States v. Marigold, 9 Howard, 560; United States v. Chapel, 54 Fed. Rep. 140. 113 United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheaton, 610.

114 The Cassius, 2 Dallas, 365; Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1; Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheaton, 246; The Laura, 5 Fed. Rep. 133; The

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »