THE DECISIONS

OF THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Err.,

v.

Authenticated copy of opinion record strictly followed, except as to such reference words and
Agures as are inclosed in brackets.]

[1] CAPITAL TRACTION COMPANY, Plff. in

CHARLES HOF.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 1-46.) Jurisdiction of this court-trial by jurytrial before justice of the peace and a jury, not a trial by jury within the constitutional provision-when trial by jury in appellate court satisfies constitutional right of trial by jury—re-examination of the facts-enlarging jurisdiction of justices of the peace.

2. Trial by jury under the Constitution means a trial by a jury of twelve men in the presence and under the superintendence of a judge empowered to instruct them on the law, and to advise them on the facts, and (except on acquittal of a criminal charge) to set aside their verdict, if, in his opinion, it is against the law or the evidence.

3. A trial by a jury of twelve men before a justice of the peace, having been unknown in England or America before the Declaration of Independence, is not a trial by jury within the meaning of U. S. Const. 7th Amend.

in any court of the United States than according to the rules of common law is not violated by allowing an appeal, for trial by a common-law jury, from the judgment on the verdict of a jury of twelve men in a court of a justice of the peace, as that is not a common-law jury.

6.

1. This court has jurisdiction of a writ of error to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia, to review its decision as to the validity and effect of the legislation of Congress conferring upon justices of the peace in that District jurisdiction in civil actions in which the matter in dispute exceeds $20 in value, and providing for a trial by jury being the case with directions to quash a writ fore the justice, an appeal to the supreme of certiorari to a justice of the peace to precourt of the District, and a trial by jury invent a civil action to recover damages in the the appellate court, at the request of either party.

sum of $300 from being tried by a jury before him. Affirmed.

4. A common-law trial by jury in a court of
record upon appeal from a judgment of a
Justice of the peace in a civil action, after
giving bond with surety to prosecute the ap-
peal and to abide the judgment of the appel-
late court, is sufficient to satisfy the consti-
tutional right of trial by jury.
5. The constitutional provision, that no fact
tried by jury shall be otherwise re-examined

The right of trial by jury is not unduly obstructed by enlarging the civil jurisdiction of Justices of the peace to $300, and requiring every appellant to give security to pay and satisfy the judgment of the appellate court in order to obtain a trial by a common-law jury on appeal.

[No. 108.]

Argued January 5, 6, 1899. Decided April 11, 1899.

District of Columbia to review a judg ment of that court reversing an order of the Supreme Court of the District and remand

See same case below, 24 Wash. L. Rep. 646 and 10 App. D. C. 205.

The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. R. Ross Perry for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Alexander Wolf for defendant in
error.

U. S. 540, 550 [32: 223, 226]; Thompson v. I preme court there should be no re-examinaUtah (1898) 170 U. S. 343 [42: 1061].

tion of facts where they had been tried in the original causes by juries;" but if this "should be thought too extensive, it might be qualified with a limitation to such causes only as are determinable at common law in that mode of trial." 2 Federalist (ed. 1788) pp. 319-321, 335, 336.

At the first session of the first Congress under the Constitution, Mr. Madison, in the House of Representatives, on June 8, 1789, submitted propositions to amend the Constitution by adding, to the clause concerning the appellate jurisdiction of this court, the words, "nor shall any fact, triable by a jury, according to the course of the common law, be otherwise re-examinable than according to the principles of the common law;" and, to the clause concerning trial by jury, these words: "In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate." 1 Annals of Congress, 424, 435. And those propositions, somewhat altered in form, were embodied in a single article, which was proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, to the legislatures of the several states, and upon being duly ratified by them, became the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, in these words: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined, in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

A comparison of the language of the Seventh Amendment, as finally made part of the Constitution of the United States, with the Declaration of Rights of 1774, with the Ordinance *of 1787, with the essays of Mr.[8] Hamilton in 1788, and with the amendments introduced by Mr. Madison in Congress in 1789, strongly tends to the conclusion that the Seventh Amendment, in declaring that "no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined, in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law," had in view the rules of the common law of England, and not the rules of that law as modified by local statute or usage in any of the states.

The decision of this case mainly turns upon the scope and effect of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It may therefore be convenient, before particularly examining the acts [6] cf Congress now in question, to *refer to the circumstances preceding and attending the adoption of this Amendment, to the contemporaneous understanding of its terms, and to the subsequent judicial interpretation thereof, as aids in ascertaining its true meaning, and its application to the case at

bar.

II. The first Continental Congress, in the Declaration of Rights adopted October 14, 1774, unanimously resolved that "the respective Colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried Ly their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law." 1 Journals of Congress, 28.

The Ordinance of 1787 declared that the inhabitants of the Northwest Territory should "always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury," "and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law." 1 Charters and Constitutions, 431.

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, merely provided in article 3, section 3, that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." In the Convention which framed the Constitution, a motion to add this clause, "and a trial by jury shall be preserved as usual in civil cases," .. was opposed by Mr. Gorham of Massachusetts, on the ground that "the constitution of juries is different in different states, and the trial itself is usual in different cases, in different states;" and was unanimously rejected. 5 Elliott's Debates, 550.

This conclusion has been established, and "the rules of the common law" in this respect clearly stated and defined, by judicial decisions.

Mr. Hamilton, in number 81 of the Federalist, when discussing the clause of the Constitution which confers upon this court "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make," and again, in more detail, in number 83, when answering the objection to the want of any provision securing trial by jury in civil actions, stated the diversity then existing in the laws of the different states regarding appeals and jury trials; and especially pointed out that in the New England states, and in those alone, appeals were allowed, as of course, from one jury to another until there had been two verdicts on one side, and in no [7] other state but Georgia was there any *appeal from one to another jury. The diversity in the laws of the several states, he insisted, "shows the impropriety of a technical definition derived from the jurisprudence of any particular state," and "that no general rule could have been fixed upon by the Con-in vain," said Mr. Justice Story, "in the vention which would have corresponded with common law, for an instance of an appellate the circumstances of all the states." And court retrying the cause by a jury, while the he suggested that "the legislature of the former verdict and judgment remained in United States would certainly have full full force. The practice indeed seems to be power to provide that in appeals to the su- a peculiarity of New England, and, if I am

In United States v. Wonson (1812) 1 Gall. 5, a verdict and judgment for the defendant having been rendered in the district court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts in an action of debt for a penalty, the United States appealed to the circuit court, and were held not to be entitled to try by a new jury in that court facts which had been tried and determined by the jury in the court below. "We should search

The judiciary act of September 24, 1789, chap. 20, drawn by Senator (afterwards Chief Justice) Ellsworth, and passed-within six months after the organization of the gov

not misinformed, does not exist in more than | ton & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago (1897) one (if any) other state in the Union." 166 U. S. 226, 246 [41: 979, 988]. And, after quoting the words of the Seventh Amendment, he observed: "Beyond all question, the common law here alluded to is not the common law of any individual state (for it probably differs in all), but it is the com-ernment under the Constitution, and on the mon law of England, the grand reservoir of day before the first ten *Amendments were [10] all our jurisprudence." "Now, according to proposed to the legislatures of the statesthe rules of the common law, the facts once by the First Congress, in which were many tried by a jury are never re-examined, unless eminent men who had been members of the a new trial is granted in the discretion of convention which formed the Constitution, the court, before which the suit is depend- has always been considered as a contempora ing, for good cause shown; or unless the neous exposition of the highest authority. judgment of such court is reversed by a su-| Cohens v. Virginia (1821) 6 Wheat. 264, 420 perior tribunal, on a writ of error, and a [5: 257, 295]; Parsons v. Bedford, above venire facias de novo is awarded. This is cited; Börs v. Preston (1884) 111 U. S. 252, the invariable usage, settled by the decisions 256 [28: 419, 420]; Ames v. Kansas [Johnsof ages." 1 Gall. 14, 20. ton] (1884) 111 U. S. 449, 463, 464 In Parsons v. Bedford (1830) 3 Pet. 433 [28: 482, 488]; Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co. [7: 732], this court, on writ of error to a (1888) 127 U. S. 265, 297 [32: 239, 246]. lower court of the United States, held that That act provided, in §§ 9 and 12, that the [9]*it had no power to re-examine facts tried by trial of issues of fact, in a district or circuit a jury in the court below, although that court, in all suits, except those of equity or court was held in Louisiana, where Congress admiralty jurisdiction, should be by jury; had enacted that the mode of proceeding in § 13, that the trial of issues of fact in this should conform to the laws directing the court, in the exercise of its original jurisdicmode of practice in the district courts of the tion, in all actions at law against citizens of state, and a statute of the state authorized the United States, should be by jury; in § 17, its supreme court to try anew on appeal that "all the said courts of the United facts tried by a jury in a district court. States" should "have power to grant new Mr. Justice Story, in delivering the judg- trials, in cases where there has been a trial ment of this court, expounding the Seventh by jury, for reasons for which new trials Amendment to the Constitution, after show- have usually been granted in the courts of ing that in the first clause the words "suits law;" and in §§ 22 and 24, that final judg at common law" were used in contradistinc- ments of the district court might be reviewed tion to suits in equity and in admiralty, and by the circuit court, and final judgments of included "not merely suits which the com- the circuit court be reviewed by this court, mon law recognized among its old and set-upon writ of error, for errors in law, but not tled proceedings," but all suits in which legal for any error in fact. 1 Stat. at L. 77, 80, rights, and not equitable rights, were ascer- 81, 83, 84. Those provisions, so far as retained and determined, proceeded as follows: gards actions at law, have since remained in "But the other clause of the Amendment is force, almost uninterruptedly; and they have still more important; and we read it as a been re-enacted in the Revised Statutes, alsubstantial and independent clause. No lowing the parties, however, to waive a jury fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-ex- and have their case tried by the court. Rev. amined, in any court of the United States, Stat. §§ 566, 633, 648, 689, 691, 726, 1011. than according to the rules of the common law. This is a prohibition to the courts of the United States to re-examine any facts, tried by a jury, in any other manner. The only modes known to the common law to reexamine such facts are the granting of a new trial by the court where the issue was tried, or to which the record was properly returnable; or the award of a venire facias de novo, by an appellate court, for some error of law which intervened in the proceedings." 3 Pet. 446-448 [7: 736, 737].

The only instances that have come to our notice, in which Congress has undertaken to authorize a second trial by jury to be had in a court of the United States, while the verdict of a jury upon a former trial in a court of record has not been set aside, are to be found in two temporary acts passed during the last war with Great Britain, and in an act passed during the War of the Rebellion and continued in force for a short time afterwards, each of which provided that certain actions brought in a state court against ofThis last statement has been often reaf- ficers or persons acting under the authority firmed by this court. Barreda v. Silsbee of the United States might, after final judg (1858) 21 How. 146, 166 [16: 86, 93]; Jus- ment, be removed by appeal or writ of error tices v. Murray (1869) 9 Wall. 274, 277 to the circuit court of the United States, [11} [19: 658, 660]; Miller v. Brooklyn Life In- and that court should "thereupon proceed to surance Co. (1870) 12 Wall. 285, 300 try and determine the facts and the law in [20: 398, 401]; Knickerbocker Insurance Co. such action in the same manner as if the v. Comstock (1872) 16 Wall. 258, 269 same had been there originally commenced, [21: 493, 498]; Mercantile Mut. Insurance the judgment in such case notwithstanding." Co. v. Folsom (1873) 18 Wall. 237, 249 Acts of February 4, 1815, chap. 31, §§ 8, 13, [21: 827, 833]; New York C. & H. R. R. Co. and March 3, 1815, chap. 94, §§ 6, 8; 3 Stat. v. Fraloff (1879) 100 U. S. 24, 31 [25: 531- at L. 199, 200, 234, 235; Act of March 3, 535]; Lincoln v. Power (1894) 151 U. S. 1863, chap. 81, § 5; 12 Stat. at L. 757; Act 436, 438 [38: 224, 225]; Chicago, Burling-'of May 11, 1866, chap. 80, § 3; 14 Stat. at

L. 46. But such a provision, so far as it authorized the facts to be tried and determined in the circuit court of the United States in a case in which a verdict had been returned in the state court, was held to be inconsistent with the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States by the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts, in a case arising under the acts of 1815; and by the supreme court of New York and by this court, in cases arising under the acts of 1863 and 1866. Wetherbee v. Johnson (1817) 14 Mass. 412; Patrie v. Murray (1864) 43 Barb. 323; S. C. nom. Justices v. Murray (1869) 9 Wall. 274 [19: 658]; McKee v. Rains (1869) 10 Wall. 22 [19: 860].

In Justices v. Murray, an action was brought by Patrie against Murray, a United States marshal, and his deputy, in the supreme court of the state of New York, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff were rendered in that court. The defendant sued out a writ of error from the circuit court of the United States, under the act of Congress of March 3, 1863, chap. 81, § 5; and moved the state court to stay proceedings. The state court denied the motion, and refused to make a return to the writ of error, upon the ground that the act of Congress, so far as it provided that a case, after verdict and judgment in a state court, might be removed to the circuit court of the United States for trial and determination upon both the facts and the law, in the same manner as if the case had been originally commenced in that court, was in violation of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and for that reason null and void. Patrie v. Murray, 43 Barb. 323. Thereupon the circuit court of the United States, without expressing any opinion upon this point, granted a writ of mandamus to the clerk of the state [12] court. *Murray v. Patrie, Blatchf. 343, 9 Wall. 276, note [19: 658]. The judgment of the circuit court ordering a mandamus was then brought to this court by writ of error, and reversed. Mr. Justice Nelson, in delivering judgment, after remarking that the case (which had been twice argued by very able counsel) had received the most deliberate The case of enforcing, in a court of the consideration of the court, quoting the state- United States, a statute of a state giving one ments of Mr. Justice Story in Parsons v. Bed-new trial, as of right, in an action of ejectford, above cited, and recognizing that the ment, is quite exceptional; and such a statsecond clause of the Seventh Amendment ute does not enlarge, but restricts, the rules could not be invoked in a state court to pro- of the common law as to re-examining facts hibit it from re-examining, on a writ of er- once tried by a jury, for by the common law ror, facts that had been tried by a jury in a a party was not concluded by a single verlower court, went on to say: "It is admitted dict and judgment in ejectment, but might that the clause applies to the appellate bring as many successive ejectments as he powers of the Supreme Court of the United pleased, unless restrained by a court of States in all common-law cases coming up equity after repeated verdicts against him. from an inferior Federal court, and also to Bacon, Abe. Ejectment, L. Equator Min. & the circuit court, in like cases, in the exer- Smelting Co. v. Hall (1882) 106 U. S. 86 cise of its appellate powers. And why not, [27: 114]; Smale v. Mitchell (1892) 143 U. as it respects the exercise of these powers, S. 99 [36: 90]. in cases of Federal cognizance coming up III. "Trial by jury," in the primary and usfrom a state court? The terms of the Amend-ual sense of the term at the common law and ment are general, and contain no qualifica- in the American Constitutions, is not merely tion in respect to the restriction upon the ap- a trial by a jury of twelve men before an offipellate jurisdiction of the courts, except as cer vested with authority to cause them to be to the class of cases, namely, suits at com- summoned and impaneled, to administer mon law, where the trial has been by jury. oaths to them and to the constable in charge, The natural inference is that no other was in- and to enter judgment and issue execution

tended. Its language, upon any reasonable, if not necessary, interpretation, we think, applies to this entire class, no matter from what court the case comes, of which cognizance can be taken by the appellate court." The ratio decidendi, the line of thought pervading and controlling the whole opinion, was that the Seventh Amendment undoubtedly prohibited any court of the United States from re-examining facts once tried by a jury in a lower court of the United States, and that there was no reason why the prohibition should not equally apply to a case brought into a court of the United States from a state court. "In both instances," it was said, "the cases are to be disposed of by the same system of laws, and by the same judicial tribunal." 9 Wall. 277-279 [19: 660, 661].

In Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 166 Ü. S. 226, 242–244 [41: 979, 987] the same course of reasoning was followed, and was applied to a case brought [13] by writ of error from the highest court of a state to this court.

It must therefore be taken as established, by virtue of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution, that either party to an action at law (as distinguished from suits in equity or in admiralty) in a court of the United States, where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars, has the right to a trial by jury; that, when a trial by jury has been had in an action at law, in a court either of the United States or of a state, the facts there tried and decided cannot be re-examined in any court of the United States, otherwise than according to the rules of the common law of England; that by the rules of that law, no other mode of re-examination is allowed than upon a new trial, either granted by the court in which the first trial was had or to which the record was returnable, or ordered by an appellate court for error in law; and therefore that, unless a new trial has been granted in one of those two ways, facts once tried by a jury cannot be tried anew, by a jury or otherwise, in any court of the United States.