4. There is some doubt whether a Cir- cuit Court has jurisdiction of the offences named in the 7th section of the Act of 1850, as that Act in terms limits cognizance of those offences to the District Court. id. 5. It may be a question whether the provision of the 11th section of the Judiciary Act of September 24th, 1789, (1 U. S. Stat. at Large, 78,) conferring on the Circuit Court con- current jurisdiction with the District Court of all crimes and offences cog- nizable therein, applies to jurisdiction subsequently conferred on the Dis- trict Court in as specific terms as that conferred by the Act of 1850. id. 6. The provision of the 2d section of the Act of August 8th, 1846, (9 U. S. Stat. at Large, 72,) by which the District Court is authorized to remit to the Circuit Court any indictment pending in the District Court, no doubt embraces the cases specified in the 7th section of the Act of 1850. id. 7. The consequences of forcible resist- ance and obstruction to the execution of the Act of 1850, considered. id.
GRAND JURORS. See GRAND JURY.
1. The Judiciary Act of September 24th, 1789, (1 U. S. Stat. at Large, 88, § 29,) the Act of May 13th, 1800, (2 Id. 82,) and the Act of July 20th, 1840, (5 Id. 394,) adopt the State regulations respecting the procure- ment of grand and petit jurors to serve in the Federal Courts, and ap- ply to those Courts the State regula- tions respecting the qualifications and the exemptions of grand and petit jurors. The United States v. Reed,
2. A challenge to a grand juror for fa- vor, on the ground that he is the prosecutor or complainant upon a charge, or that he is a witness on the
7. Challenges to the array of grand jurors are abolished by the laws of New York, and are consequently also abolished in the Federal Courts in New York. id.
8. But still, where there has been any improper conduct on the part of the officers employed in designating, summoning and returning the grand jury, an accused person who is pre- judiced thereby has his remedy by motion to the Court for relief. id.
9. All objections, however, to the pro- ceedings in the selection and sum- moning of grand jurors, over and be- yond the right of challenge, are pre- sented to the Court for the exercise of its sound discretion, and, although there may be technical irregularities, it will not interpose, unless satisfied that the accused party is prejudiced by them.
10. Under the Act of August 8th, 1846, (9 U. S. Stat. at Large, 73, § 3,) pro- viding that no grand jury shall be summoned in the Federal Courts ex- cept upon an order for a venire, to be made by a Judge, a venire should be issued by the clerk of the Court, in pursuance of the order. id..
11. A verbal order given by a Judge
15. By the law of New York, (2 R. S. 724, § 27, 28,) persons "held to answer," that is, arrested and held to bail to appear at the term of the Court at which the grand jury at- tends, to answer such complaints as may be presented against them, are the only persons who can challenge either the array of grand jurors, or the individual grand jurors for favor. id.
.16. Where a party appeals to the sound discretion of the Court to set aside an indictment for irregularities in drawing or summoning the grand jury, he must implicate the good faith of the officers concerned in discharg- ing those duties.
19. The Court has no power to inquire into the mode in which the examina- tion of witnesses was conducted be- fore the grand jury, for the purpose of invalidating an indictment. id.
20. It will inquire, however, into the manner of swearing the witnesses, when they are sworn in open Court, and into the competency of the evi- dence, whether oral or documentary, and into the manner of authenticat- ing the latter species of evidence. id. 21. Where witnesses before a grand jury are testifying in regard to facts about which they have previously made ex parte affidavits, it is not improper for them to consult those affidavits, to refresh their recollec- tion; nor is there any objection to their swearing that certain facts, of which they have previously made statements on paper, are true.
23. On a criminal charge against sev- eral persons, for a participation in the rescue of a person from the hands of a public officer who held him in custody, the witnesses who were to testify before the grand jury were sworn in open Court in the following manner: The clerk of the Court was furnished with a general description of the persons accused-The United States v. M. S. and others-and then administered to the witnesses this oath: You, and each of you, do severally solemnly swear, that the evidence you shall give to the grand inquest touching charges against M. S., and others, concerning which you shall be interrogated, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- ing but the truth. So help you God." Upon the testimony given under this oath, twenty-four bills of indictment were found against twenty-four different persons, one against each. No indictment was found against "M. S. and others," nor was any indictment found against any two persons jointly. On a mo- tion by E. R., the defendant in one of the indictments, to quash it, on
2. But this Court, in executing a juris- diction vested in it, may, in a case of which it has cognizance, act upon parties who are suitors in a State Court in relation to the same subject- matter, so far at least as to compel their submission to such judgment as this Court may render in the case. id.
3. Where funds were deposited in a bank, and afterward S., claiming the funds as his property, commenced a suit for their recovery in a State Court against the bank and Y., the depositor of the funds, and, while that suit was pending, Y. commenced two suits in this Court against the bank, to recover the funds and dam- ages for their detention, the bank having no interest in the funds: Held, on a bill filed in this Court by the bank against S. and Y., that although this Court would not de- cree an interpleader in the case, or enjoin the suit in the State Court, yet it would enjoin the prosecution by Y. of his suits in this Court, until the final decision of the suit in the State Court. id.
4. Held, also, that this Court would give the parties the option to consent by stipulation to interplead in this Court on the subject-matter, and, in case they did so, would allow the bank to pay the funds into Court, first deducting such costs and ex- penses as the Court should allow. id. 5. This Court has power, in a proper case, to prohibit a non-resident plain- tiff from prosecuting an action against a defendant residing within
1. These points are settled in the con- struction of policies of insurance: First, They are to have a liberal and benign interpretation in behalf of the insured; Second, They are to be construed and enforced according to the plain intent of the parties, if no settled rule of law interposes to pre- vent; Third, Whether or not, by the general rules of insurance law, the fact that the insured party had no insurable interest in the subject in- sured at the time it was intended the contract should commence its operation, although he possessed such interest at the time of the loss, would render the policy invalid, yet it is competent for the parties to contract with a view to such a con- dition of things. Heushaw v. The Mutual Safety Ins. Co. 99
2. There is strong color, however, for the doctrine, that the party intended
to be insured will be protected, if he had an interest at the time of the loss, without any express stipulation to that effect, although he had no in- terest at the commencement of the risk. id.
3. A time policy, against marine risk, on a steam-vessel, for a succession of voyages, each voyage to bear its own average, made at the instance of N., on account of whom it may concern, the loss payable to H., for the sum of $15,000, is an agreement by the underwriters to insure all the inter- est to that amount which shall be owned in the vessel at the time of her loss within the policy, and to pay the loss to H., for the benefit of the actual owners. id.
1 A judgment or decree docketed in a Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, is a lien on the lands of the defendant in whatever county of the District they are situated. Cropsey v. Crandall, 341
2. It is not necessary to the creation of such lien, that a transcript of the judgment or decree should be filed in the office of the clerk of any county in the District. id.
3. The statutes of New York which limit the duration of the lien of the judgments and decrees of the State Courts apply to the judgments and decrees of the Courts of the United States within the State. id.
4. But the New York statute of May 14th, 1840, (Laws of 1840, chap. 386, § 26,) prescribing what acts are
8. Held, also, that this was especially so where the owner of the vessel at the time appeared in the suit in the Ohio Court, and contested the pro ceedings throughout. id.
See EQUITY, 3, 4. LIEN, 9.
RENTS AND PROFITS.
1. Under 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, (1 U. S. Stat. at Large, 78,) construed in connection with Art. 3, sec. 2, of the Constitution of the United States, it is not sufficient to give jurisdiction of a suit to a Circuit
« ForrigeFortsett » |