imprisonment occurring under or by color of the authority of the United States, or for acts done, or omitted to be done, in pursuance of a law of the United States, or of a judicial authority of any court or judge thereof. The justices of the Supreme Court, and the judges of district courts, may grant writs of habeas corpus, when subjects of any foreign government, and domiciled therein, are in custody, under the authority or process of the United States, or of any state, for acts done under the order or sanction of any foreign state, the validity of which depends upon the law of nations, or under color thereof; and may hear the case, and discharge the prisoner, if entitled thereto by reason of such alleged authority set up, and the law of nations applicable thereto; and all proceedings had in the mean time, under any state authority, are declared void. (a) 1

to summary punishment, and the only remedy for the persons aggrieved is by indictment or action at law. The Act of Pennsylvania of 16th June, 1836, enacted the same provision. In the case Ex parte Poulson, which arose upon a motion in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in 1835, in the cause of Drew v. Swift, for a rule on Poulson, the editor of a daily paper, to show cause why an attachment should not issue against him for a contempt, in publishing a very libellous article upon the plaintiff pending the trial, Judge Baldwin felt himself bound to deny the motion, in consequence of the Act of Congress of 1831. That Act had withdrawn from the courts of the United States the common-law power to protect their suitors, officers, witnesses, and themselves, against the libels of the press, however atrocious, and though published and circulated pending the very trial of a cause. The case before him was one which showed, in a very strong light, the unreasonableness of the law, in leaving the suitor unprotected at the moment when he stands most in need of it, and when the mischief to him might be great and remediless. The want of such protection, and the undue distrust which the denial of the common-law power over contempts implies, tend to impair, in the estimation of the public, the value of the administration of justice.

The power of the courts to punish summarily for contempts, has been lately much restrained in England; for in the case of The King v. Faulkner, (2 Montagu & Ayrton's Cases in Bankruptcy, 311,) it was held, in the Court of Exchequer, that a single commissioner of the Court of Bankruptcy, sitting alone, had no power to punish any centempt, however gross or personal.

(a) Acts of Congress of September 24th, 1789, sec. 14, and March 2d, 1833, c. 57, sec. 7, and August 29th, 1842, c. 257. This last statute was passed in consequence

1 As to the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States to issue a habeas corpus as an appellate tribunal, see ante, p. 299, note. State courts have jurisdiction, concurrent with the federal courts, of a writ of habeas corpus for the body of a minor enlisted in the army. Commonwealth v. Fox, 7 Barr's R. 336. This power is denied In the matter of

Circuit

Court.

(2.) The limits and jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States have been subject to frequent changes, and their number has been steadily increasing with the increase of states and districts, ever since the first organization of the national courts under the Act of Congress of the 24th of September, 1789. They are established in each district (with a few exceptions) of the nine great circuits into which the United States are now (a) divided. The first circuit is composed of the districts of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island; the second circuit, of the districts of Connecticut, Vermont, and the northern and southern districts of New York; the third circuit of the district of New Jersey, and the eastern and western districts of Pennsylvania; the fourth circuit, of the districts of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia; the fifth circuit of the districts of Alabama and Louisiana; the sixth circuit, of the districts of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia; the seventh circuit, of the districts of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan; the eighth circuit, of the Districts of Kentucky, east, middle, and west Tennessee, and the district of Missouri; and the ninth circuit, of the districts of Mississippi and Arkansas. In each district of these circuits, with the exception of some of the districts in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, two circuit courts are annually held by one of the judges of the Supreme Court and the district judge of the district; but the Supreme Court may, in cases where special circumstances shall in their judgment render the same necessary, assign two of the judges of the Supreme Court

of the case of McLeod, who was indicted for murder, in crossing the river Niagara, in the night, with an armed force, and seizing and destroying the steamboat Caroline, attached to the American shore, and in which affray an American citizen was killed. He pleaded authority from the Canadian powers, which authority was admitted, or assumed, by the British government; but the plea was overruled by the judicial authorities of New York, and McLeod brought to trial. See 1 Hill, 377, and 25 Wendell, 483.1

(a) 1840.

Vertemaitre, Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of N. Y., Law Rep. Apr. 1851, p. 608, New York Leg. Obsr. May, 1851, p. 129.

'In Buron v. Denman, 2 Wels. H. & Gor. R. 167, it was held, that the ratification of an individual's act by the government rendered it an act of state, for which the crown alone was responsible.

to attend a circuit court; and when the district judge shall be absent, or shall have been counsel, or be interested in the cause, the Circuit Court may consist only of a judge of the Supreme Court. (a) 1

*302

*These circuit courts, thus organized, are vested with original cognizance, concurrent 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 five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, and the United States are plaintiffs, or an alien is a party, and the suit is between a citizen of the state where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state. (b) They have likewise exclusive cognizance, except in certain cases which will be hereafter mentioned, of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States, exceeding the degree of ordinary misdemeanors, and of them they have concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts. (c) But no person can be arrested in one district for trial in another, and no civil suit can be brought against an inhabitant of the United States out of his district; (d) 2 and the Act of Congress

(a) Acts of Congress of April 29th, 1802, c. 31 ; of March 3d, 1837, c. 34; of February 22d, 1838, c. 12; and of August 16th, 1842, c. 180.

(b) The damages laid in the declaration, if they exceed $500, give the jurisdiction as to the matter in dispute. Muns v. Dupont, 2 Wash. Cir. Rep. 463. It is the amount of damages claimed in the declaration that determines the jurisdiction in the federal courts. Gordon v. Longest, 16 Peters's R. 97. The limitation to $500 and upwards, was abolished by the Act of March 3d, 1815, in cases where the United States are plaintiffs. The suits between citizens, in civil causes, where the demand is to any small amount, belong to the local state courts, and are generally cognizable before single magistrates, and with juries reduced in number, or without juries, as the case may be. A late English statute (8 and 9 Vict. c. 127) instituted a court of that kind, of an efficient organization and summary jurisdiction. It consists of a single judge, who is to be a barrister, a pleader, or an attorney of ten years' standing; and it has jurisdiction to try summarily all suits for debts under £20. The judge has power to commit, in all cases of fraud or misconduct, to prison for forty days, and is the judge of all matters of law and fact, and there is to be no appeal from his decisions; but certiorari will lie to remove all suits above £10.

(c) See infra, pp. 360–363.

(d) Process of foreign attachment cannot be issued by the circuit courts of the

1 If both the judges be disqualified by interest or otherwise, the cause will be certified to the nearest court in the circuit competent in point of law to try it. Richardson v. Boston, 1 Curtis, C. C. 250.

2 "But a civil suit may be brought against an inhabitant of the United States, in any

provides against the assumption of federal jurisdiction to be created by the assignment of promissory notes, or other choses in action, except foreign bills of exchange. This restriction applies to assignees by operation of law, (a) but it does not apply to notes payable to bearer; (b) nor to suits by Indorsee v. Indorser, for that creates a new contract; (c) 2 nor to suits in equity by a judgment creditor; (d) nor to cases in which the United States are a party. (e) The circuit courts have also

United States, where the defendant is domiciled abroad, or not found within the district. The circuit courts cannot issue process beyond the limits of their district, except subpoena, for witnesses and executions in two special cases. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300.3.

(a) Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332.

(b) Bullard v. Bell, 1 Mason, 251. Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Peters, 318.

(c) Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheaton, 146.

(d) Bean v. Smith, 2 Mason, 252. Dexter v. Smith, Ibid. 303.

(e) Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheaton, 904.

district in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ." Act of Congress of September 24th, 1789, (1 Statutes at Large, 78.) The circuit courts have jurisdiction of torts, wherever committed, in cases where they have jurisdiction of the persons of the parties. Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. U. S. 115. The state courts have jurisdiction in actions of trover, against a postmaster, for non-delivery of a letter. Teal v. Felton, 12 How. U. S. 284.

1 A debt secured by a bond and mortgage is a "chose in action" within the meaning of the statute. Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. U. S. 441. In this case, the question was raised whether the Act of Congress, denying the courts of the United States jurisdiction in cases where suits are brought on choses in action, under the circumstances mentioned in the text, was within the constitutional powers of Congress; and the court held that it was. See, also, Smith v. Kernochen, 7 How. U. S. 198. Although the assignor make the assignment for the express purpose of giving the United States courts jurisdiction, they will not have jurisdiction, unless the assignee was also privy to, or entertained such purpose. The rights of the remote assignee of a chose in action shall not be prejudiced by the disability of intermediate holders, if the party first entitled to the debt could have sued under the Act, and the assignee now occupy the same position. Milledollar v. Bell, 2 Wallace, Jr. C. C. 334. The assignee is not restrained from bringing suit to recover the thing in specie, or damages for its detention. Deshler v. Dodge, 16 How. U. S. 622.

2 When an indorsee of a paper, other than a foreign bill of exchange, sues a remote indorser, and is obliged to trace his title through intermediate indorsers, the United States Circuit Court has no jurisdiction, unless it be shown that all the intermediate persons could have sustained an action in the United States Circuit Court to recover the contents of the paper. Campbell v. Jordan, 1 Hempstead, C. C. R. 534.

8 Saddler v. Hudson, 2 Curtis, C. C. 6. In Allen v. Blunt, 1 Blatchf. C. C. 480, in an action upon a judgment rendered in the Circuit Court in Massachusetts, the plaintiff failed to recover, because it did not affirmatively appear on the face of the record from that cou t, that the defendant was personally served with process within that district. And see Sadlier v. Fallon, 2 Curtis, C. C. 579.

appellate jurisdiction from all final decrees and judgments in the district courts, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds fifty dollars. If the remedy be on final decrees in the district courts, in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and the matter in dispute exceeds three hundred dollars, it is by appeal; and if on final judgments in civil actions,

and the matter in dispute exceeds fifty dollars, it is by * 303 writ of error. (a) And if any suit be commenced in a state court against an alien, or by a citizen of the state in which the suit is brought against a citizen of another state,1 or against a citizen of the same state claiming lands under a grant from another state, and the matter in dispute exceeds five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, the defendant, on giving security, may remove the cause to the next circuit court. (b) The circuit courts have also original cognizance in equity and at law of all suits arising under the revenue laws of the United States, or under any law of the United States relative to copyrights and patent-rights growing out of inventions and discoveries, and to protect such rights by injunction. (c)2 The jurisdiction in cases of copyrights applies, without regard to the character of the parties, or the amount in controversy; and with respect to the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, it may be laid down as the settled doctrine, that they are courts of limited, though not of inferior jurisdiction; and it is necessary, therefore, that there should appear upon the record of a circuit court, the facts or circumstances which give jurisdiction, either expressly or by necessary legal intendment. (d)

(a) Acts of Congress of September 24th, 1789, sec. 11, 21, 22; and March 3d, 1803, c. 40, sec. 2.

(b) Act of Congress of September 24th, 1789, sec. 12. In Smets v. Williams, 4 Paige's Rep. 364, it was declared, that the amount of the original claim of the plaintiff, and not the amount ultimately found due, determined the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery of New York, where it was limited to a certain sum.

(c) Acts of April 17th, 1800, c. 25, sec. 3; of February 15th, 1819, sec. 1, and of July 4th, 1836, c. 357, sec. 17. Act of March 2d, 1833, entitled, further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, c. 57, sec. 2.

(d) Turner v. The Bank of North America, 4 Dall. Rep. 11. McCormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheaton, 192. See, also, post, p. 314. The circuit courts are not author

1 See Hubbard v. Northern R. R. Co. 25 Verm. 715.

2 The mere fact that the subject-matter of a contract is a patent-right, does not bring it