§ 2009. impaneling jurors.- The supreme and district courts of the territory of Utah are not federal courts in such a sense as to be bound by the acts of congress relative to the impaneling of jurors in the federal courts. Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall., 447.

§2010. The supreme court of the territory of Utah has no original jurisdiction conferred upon it by the organic act, save in a case of habeas corpus. The original jurisdiction is mainly in the district court. Godbe v. Salt Lake City,* 1 Utab T'y, 79; Shepperd v. District Court, id., 341.

*

2. State Courts.

[See III, 2, 3, 4, supra. Appellate Jurisdiction over State Courts, see APPEALS, VI. State Laws and Decisions, see CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, XIII, 7; PRACTICE. Removal from State Courts, see CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, XI, 2; CRIMES, XXXIII, 2; PRACTICE. See, also, STATES AND TERRITORIES.]

§ 2011. Relation to federal courts. While the federal courts are not foreign tribunals in their relations to the state courts, they are tribunals of a different sovereignty, exercising a distinct and independent jurisdiction, and are bound to give the judgments of the state courts only the same faith and credit which the courts of another state are bound to give them, and may impeach them for want of jurisdiction. Pennoyer v. Neff, 5 Otto, 733.

$ 2012. While United States courts are not foreign courts in their relation to state courts, yet they have a distinct jurisdiction, and are only obliged to give such credit to the judgments of the state courts as other state courts would. They may always inquire into the question whether the state court had jurisdiction to render its judgment. Galpin v. Page, 3 Saw., 107.

§ 2013. Appointing guardian ad litem of non-resident.— A state court has no jurisdiction to appoint a guardian ad litem of a non-resident minor defendant, upon whom no actual service of notice of the suit has been made, and any decree made is void as against that defendant. Ibid.

§ 2014. A judgment rendered against a non-resident defendant in a state court, if purely personal, and given without actual notice to the defendant, and without his appearance, is made without jurisdiction and is void. If the suit, however, is in rem, against property of the defendant within the jurisdiction of the court, or if specific property is attached to answer the judgment in the case, or seized on execution to satisfy such judgment, the judgment is valid so far as the property involved is concerned. Neff v. Pennoyer, 3 Saw., 274. § 2015. Jurisdiction as to foreign corporation.—In 1852 a Connecticut corporation insured the life of E., a citizen of Virginia, in consideration of the annual payment of a specified premium to the end of his life. Premiums were paid only up to 1860, and in 1869 E. died. In 1856 the legislature of Virginia passed an act requiring all foreign insurance companies to appoint agents in the state, who should accept service of process. In the same year the company appointed L. as such agent. He acted as such till 1861, and did not act after that with its knowledge or consent. In 1866 the agency was formally revoked. After 1861 the company did no business in Virginia. L. died in 1876, and an administrator was duly appointed. In 1877 the legislature of Virginia passed another act, providing that if no successor was appointed upon the death of an agent, his personal representative should be regarded as the agent authorized to accept service of process against the corporation. The administratrix of E. sued the company on the policy in 1878, and served process on the administrator of the agent alone, and judgment was obtained by default. Suit was brought on this judgment in the circuit court of the United States. It was held that the act of 1877 was prospective only and did not apply to the defendant company; and that the Virginia court had no jurisdiction of the defendant. Ellis v. Connecticut M. L. Ins. Co., 19 Blatch., 383.

§ 2016. Sending process into another state.—A state magistrate cannot issue process into United States v. Little, 2 Wash., 159.

another state.

§2017. Judgment rendered after secession of state. A judgment rendered in a state court some days after the state had passed an ordinance of secession is not thereby invalidated, since the ordinance was itself a nullity and did not affect the jurisdiction of the state court or its relation to the United States courts. White v. Cannon, 6 Wall., 450.

§2018. Mandamus to United States land register.— A state court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a land register, a United States official, to compel him to make certain disposition of United States lands and issue the regular documents of title. M'Clung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat., 599.

§ 2019. Questions of jurisdiction. The court of last resort in every state decides upon its own jurisdiction and upon the jurisdiction of all inferior courts to which its appellate power extends. Davis v. Packard, 8 Pet., 323 (APPEALS, § 2718).

§ 2020. Consuls.- A consul-general of a foreign power is exempted from the jurisdiction of the state court, and should be sued only in some federal court. lbid.

§ 2021. Construing charter of railroad company.— When a question is raised in a suit in a state court, whether a railroad company is authorized by its charter to do certain acts, and the court decides that it is so authorized, this decision, if not binding on the supreme court of the United States, is of high authority, and will not be disregarded. Railroad Cos. v. Schutte, 13 Otto, 143 (BONDS, §§ 1830-37).

§ 2022. Seizures under revenue laws.- A state court has no jurisdiction of a case concerning a seizure of goods or vessels for a forfeiture under the revenue laws of the United States. Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat., 312.

§ 2023. If cargo in a vessel is illegally seized by the surveyor of the customs, and replevied by the owner in a state court, in which case judgment is given against the revenue officer, on removal to the supreme court of the United States by writ of error, the jurisdiction of the state court to render its judgment will be sustained. Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat., 9.

§ 2024. Trover for newspaper illegally held for postage.—A state court has jurisdiction to try an action of trover to recover the value of a newspaper illegally held by a postmaster for more postage than was lawfully due. Teal v. Felton, 12 How., 292.

§ 2025. County court of Virginia — Credit in other states. The regular proceedings and decree of a county court of Virginia are allowed the same credit in Kentucky as in Virginia. Caldwell v. Carrington, 9 Pet., 101.

§ 2026. The superior court of Rhode Island is the highest court of law of that state within the meaning of the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act. Olney v. Arnold,* 3 Dall., 308. § 2027. Chancery court in Maryland.- The act of Maryland legislature of 1785, chapter 72, giving the chancellor power to sell the real estate of deceased persons in certain cases, is an extension of the jurisdiction of the court of chancery, not a personal power granted to the chancellor. Bank of United States v. Ritchie, 8 Pet., 143.

§ 2028. District court in Louisiana.- Article 126 of the Code of Practice of Louisiana, declaring that the jurisdiction of the district courts extends over all civil causes where the amount in dispute exceeds $50, renders such courts courts of general jurisdiction. Where the purpose of the suit is to charge an executor or curator personally for fraud, maladministration, waste or embezzlement of the succession, the court of probate has no jurisdiction, but the case is within the jurisdiction of the district court. And where such a cause brought in the probate court is removed by consent of all the parties to the district court, the latter obtains jurisdiction thereby. Forniquet v. Perkins,* 7 How., 160.

§ 2029. Parish courts of Louisiana.— The jurisdiction of the parish court of Louisiana extends to suits by wives for separation of property. Carite v. Trotot, 15 Otto, 764.

$ 2030. City court of Yonkers.- By statute the city court of Yonkers is given all the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, and the same powers as the marine court of New York; also civil jurisdiction of actions for the recovery of money up to the amount of $1,000. This court has, therefore, a common law jurisdiction, and may grant applications for naturalization, under section 2165 of the United States Revised Statutes. United States v. Power, 14 Blatch., 223.

§ 2031. The district court of California, a state court, having jurisdiction over cases of divorce, has also, under the statutes of the state, jurisdiction to make orders for the custody of children whose parents are divorced by the court. Bennett v. Bennett, Deady, 303.

2032. County court in Kentucky.- The term "county court," as used in the act of the legislature of Kentucky of February 24, 1868, amending the charter of the Elizabethtown & Paducah Railroad Company, and providing that if any county shall subscribe to the capital stock of said company, under the provisions of this act, and issue bonds for the payment of such subscription, “it shall be the duty of the county court of such county to cause to be levied and collected a tax" sufficient to pay the interest on the bonds, means a court composed of the county judge and the justices of the peace of the county; and the county judge alone cannot levy the tax provided for. Meriwether v. Judge of Muhlenburg County Court,* 8 Fed. R., 737.

3. Probate Courts.

[See ESTATES OF DECEDENTS.]

§ 2033. Appointing administrator of living person - Letters as evidence. A probate court has no jurisdiction to appoint an administrator of a living person, and the letters of administration are not conclusive evidence of the death in a collateral proceeding. United States v. Payne, 4 Dill., 389.

§ 2034. Appointing an administrator after the appointment of an executor.- A probate court has no jurisdiction to appoint an administrator after an executor has been appointed. 769

VOL. XI-49

Such an appointment is an act outside the jurisdiction of the court and is void. Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr., 22.

§ 2035. Notice. A probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction. If its jurisdiction to appoint a guardian is dependent on a certain notice, and that notice is not given, the proceedings are null and void, and will not be considered in a circuit court of the United States. Hart v. Gray, 3 Sumn., 341; Seaverns v. Gerke, 3 Saw., 364.

§ 2036. A court of probate has only a special and limited jurisdiction. If required by statute to give notice before making a decree, such decree is void if made without notice, at least so far as concerns parties who were entitled to the notice. Mathewson v. Sprague, 1 Curt., 461.

§ 2037.

- waiver.— A probate court is a court of limited and special jurisdiction. As it is required by statute to give notice to persons interested before it acts, any act done without such notice is without its jurisdiction and void. Although, generally, parties interested may waive notice, yet by the statutes of Rhode Island a guardian is not empowered to do so for his ward, and any proceeding on such waiver is a proceeding without notice. Ibid.

§ 2038. Where the jurisdictional facts appear.- If the only fact necessary to give the probate court power to order a sale of lands by an administrator is that it be made to appear that the personal property is insufficient to pay debts, and this fact is on the record of the probate court granting the order, the supreme court of the United States will not inquire into the regularity of the order, since the jurisdictional facts appear. Comstock v. Crawford, 3 Wall., 404.

§ 2039. Where, by statute of a territory, the only two facts necessary to give the probate court jurisdiction of a case are the death of a non-resident intestate and the possession by him at the time of personal property within the territory, and these facts appear on the record of a case afterwards brought before the supreme court of the United States, that court will not revise the decree of the probate court. Ibid.

§ 2040. Recital in decree.— An order of a state court of probate, decreeing the sale of land, and reciting that notice had been duly given in accordance with a previous order, is conclusive, in a federal court, that such notice had been given. Segee v. Thomas, 3 Blatch., 21. § 2041. In Oregon.-The powers of probate courts in Oregon are much larger than the powers of the ecclesiastical courts of England. A review of the history of probate courts. Adams v. Lewis, 5 Saw., 231.

2042. By the constitution of Oregon, the county court, when sitting as a court of probate, is a court of general jurisdiction, and it is presumed to have jurisdiction until the contrary is shown. Gager v. Henry, 5 Saw., 241.

§ 2043. In Mississippi.- Under the act of congress (1 Stat. at Large, 88, 89), depositions are allowed to be taken before a "judge of a county court." A probate court of Mississippi, where one is organized for each county, and is a court of record and has a seal, is such a county court. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 How., 393 (CONV., §§ 1877-80).

§ 2044. In Colorado Territory.- The probate court of the territory of Colorado had no federal jurisdiction, and therefore no jurisdiction of a suit by an assignee in bankruptcy to recover assets of the bankrupt to an amount of more than $500. Hallack v. Tritch,* 17 N. B. R., 293.

§ 2045. In Montana Territory.—The probate courts of Montana Territory have no jurisdiction of suits against administrators for misappropriation of the estate. Deer Lodge County v. Kohrs,* 2 Mont. T'y, 67.

§ 2046. In Utah Territory.- The probate courts of the territory of Utah had a general civil and criminal jurisdiction, both at law and in equity, conferred upon them by act of the territorial legislature. The act of congress which provided for the courts of the territory enacted that there should be a supreme and several district courts, which should have general jurisdiction at law and in equity. Held, that the jurisdiction at common law given by the territorial act to the probate courts was void, as contrary to the act of congress. Ferris v. Higley, 20 Wall., 379 (§§ 1984-88).

§ 2047. In Kansas Territory. The act of the territorial legislature of Kansas, conferring upon the probate courts jurisdiction in common law and equity, is void. (Affirming Locknane v. Martin,* McCahon, 60.) Dewey v. Dyer,* McCahon, 77; Otis v. Jenkins,* McCahon, 87.

4. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

§ 2048. Jurisdiction and powers. The circuit court of the District of Columbia has larger jurisdiction and powers than the other circuit courts of the United States. It can try other than federal causes. It may call a special session for the trial of causes, and may at that session also try causes which arose since the calling of the session. United States v. Williams, 4 Cr. C. C., 375.

§ 2049. The circuit court of the District of Columbia has a more extensive jurisdiction than other circuit courts. It has cognizance of all suits in law and equity which are not exclusively within the jurisdiction of the supreme court of the United States or the district court. United States v. Kendall, 5 Cr. C. C., 188.

§ 2050. Source of jurisdiction.— The jurisdiction of the circuit court in the District of Columbia is derived from act of congress and not from the laws of Maryland. United States v. Tarlton, 4 Cr. C. C., 682.

§ 2051. Jurisdictional amount.- If two separate causes of action are combined in one declaration, the federal circuit court in the District of Columbia has jurisdiction if the combined amount demanded is more than $20, though each separate demand is less. Ridgway v. Pancost, 1 Cr. C. C., 88.

§ 2052. If a verdict is for the debt mentioned in the declaration, to be discharged on payment of a sum less than $20, and the debt so mentioned is a note for $214, this will support the jurisdiction of the federal circuit court in the District of Columbia, although the debt had been reduced, by payments on the note before suit, to a less sum than $20. Hays v. Bell, 1 Cr. C. C., 440.

§ 2053. The amount demanded by a process of attachment being under $20, the United States circuit court sitting in Alexandria has no jurisdiction of the case. Rutter v. Merchant, 1 Cr. C. C., 36.

§ 2054. A verdict for less than $20 will not support the jurisdiction of the United States circuit court in the District of Columbia. Curry v. Fletcher, 1 Cr. C. C., 113; McLaughlin v. Steele, id., 483.

§ 2055. Bastardy complaint.-The circuit court of the United States sitting in the District of Columbia has jurisdiction of a bastardy complaint. Ross v. Kingston, 1 Cr. C. C., 140. But only upon complaint of one of the overseers of the poor. United States v. Dick, 2 Cr. C. C., 409.

§ 2056. Quashing of inquisition.— The federal circuit court in the District of Columbia is a court of record, and may cause an inquisition illegally returned to be quashed. Georgetown Turnpike Co. v. Custis, 1 Cr. C. C., 585.

§ 2057. Granting ferry rights.— In regard to granting rights of ferry, the federal circuit court in the District of Columbia has only the powers of a county court of Virginia. Berry's Petition, 2 Cr. C. C., 13.

§ 2058. Application by apprentice for discharge.—The federal circuit court in the District of Columbia has jurisdiction of an application by an apprentice to be discharged from service on account of the cruelty of the master. Cannon v. Davis, 1 Cr. C. C., 457.

§ 2059. Suit against administrator appointed by state court.-An administrator appointed by a state court cannot be sued in the circuit court of the District of Columbia for money received by him as administrator, even though the money was received as a debt due from the government at the treasury department at Washington. Vaughan v. Northrup, 15 Pet., 5.

§ 2080. Injunction.— The federal circuit court in the District of Columbia will grant an injunction against selling a free negro and allowing him to be carried out of the jurisdiction of the court, upon petition and affidavit. McGunnigle v. Washington, 2 Cr. C. C., 460.

§ 2061. Mandamus.- A writ of mandamus may be issued by the federal circuit court in the District of Columbia to compel a corporation in the District to pay an ascertained sum. United States v. Corporation of Washington, 2 Cr. C. C., 174.

§ 2062. It is within the jurisdiction of the circuit court for the District of Columbia to issue a mandamus to the postmaster-general of the United States to compel him to perform a ministerial act, the right of the person asking the writ and the obligation at law of the postmaster-general to perform the act being clear and undoubted. United States v. Kendall, 5 Cr. C. C., 266.

§ 2063. Appeals from justices of the peace. The federal circuit court in the District of Columbia has no jurisdiction of appeals from a judgment of a justice of the peace for a violation of a by-law of a city. Boothe v. Georgetown, 2 Cr. C. C., 356.

§ 2064. No case in the District of Columbia, before a justice of the peace, can be appealed to the circuit court when the judgment is for less than $5. Owner v. Corporation of Washington, 5 Cr. C. C., 381.

§ 2065. Where there has been a jury trial before a justice. There cannot be a trial in the federal circuit court in the District of Columbia of a case which has been tried before a justice of the peace with a jury. The seventh amendment to the constitution forbids this (Davidson v. Burr, 2 Cr. C. C., 515; Maddox v. Stewart, id., 523; Smith v. Chase, 3 Cr. C. C,, 349), unless the case was not within the jurisdiction of the justice at all. Cross v. Blanford, 2 Cr. C. C., 677.

$2066. Attachment issued by warrant of justice. The circuit court of the District of Columbia has jurisdiction of an attachment issued by warrant of a justice of the peace under Maryland act of 1795, chapter 56. Hard v. Stone, 5 Cr. C. C., 503.

§ 2067. Subpœna traveling out of District.-A witness arrested in Virginia on attachment for contempt in not attending at the circuit court of the District of Columbia will be discharged on habeas corpus by the district court of Virginia, on the ground that the subpoena of the former court cannot rightfully travel outside the District of Columbia. Ex parte Pleasants, 4 Cr. C. C., 315.

§ 2068. Attachment for witness in Maryland.-The circuit court of the United States sitting in the District of Columbia will grant an attachment for contempt against a witness residing in Baltimore, who has been summoned and refuses to appear (Hodgson v. Butts, 1 Cr. C. C., 447), or anywhere in Maryland, if within one hundred miles of the place of holding court (Sommerville v. French, 1 Cr. C. C., 474), but not beyond that distance. Henry v. Ricketts, id., 580.

5. Miscellaneous Courts, including Courts-martial.

§ 2069. The supreme court of the District of Columbia is a court of the United States. Noerr v. Brewer,* 1 MacArth., 508.

§ 2070. The supreme court of the District of Columbia in general term has no jurisdiction to review the decisions of a justice of the peace. Such decisions are to be revised by a special term of the court, and its decisions are final. Luchs v. Jones,* 1 MacArth., 349.

§ 2071. County courts of District of Columbia.- Upon a claim for a debt of less than $20 in the District of Columbia, an attachment must be sued out from the county courts under the provisions of act of Maryland, 1791, chapter 68, section 1, not act of 1795, chapter 56. Dix v. Nicholls, 2 Cr. C. C., 581.

§ 2072. Orphans' court in District of Columbia.- In the District of Columbia the orphans' court alone has the right to bind out apprentices while it is in session. May v. Bayne, 3 Cr. C. C., 335. It may bind out orphans without indentures. Bell v. English, 4 Cr. C. C., 332. § 2073. Orphans' court in Alexandria.- If a testator requests that his executors be not required to give security, the orphans' court in Alexandria may refuse to obey this request, if it appears that the property is not large enough to pay debts. Ex parte Lee, 1 Cr. C. C., 394.

§ 2074. The judge of the orphans' court in Alexandria has no power, under the law of Virginia (act of December 13, 1792, section 61, page 167), to compel any person to administer upon an estate contrary to his will, and if he had such power he could not compel the marshal of the District of Columbia to act. Ex parte Ringgold,* 3 Cr. C. C., 86.

§ 2075. Provisional court of Louisiana.- When the provisional court of the state of Louisiana was ended, its decrees were by statute made decrees of the circuit court of Louisiana, and an appeal is properly taken from that court to the supreme court of the United States. The Grapeshot, 7 Wall., 563.

§ 2076. The provisional court of Louisiana, established by the president on the 20th of October, 1862, did not cease to exist until July 28, 1866, when congress provided for the transfer of cases pending in that court, and of its judgments and decrees, to the proper courts of the United States. Burke v. Miltenberger, 19 Wall., 519.

§ 2077. In a criminal prosecution in the provisional court of Louisiana, on a plea to its jurisdiction, it was held that it was the right and duty of the president, as commander-in-chief of the army, to establish judicial tribunals in Louisiana after the conquest of that state by the federal troops; and that the powers of the courts established by the president's order of October 20, 1862, did not terminate with the military occupation of Louisiana, nor with the restoration in part of the civil government, but would continue so long as the president, or the government he represents, should will it, and uphold them. United States v. Reiter,* 4 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.), 534.

§ 2078. Military courts.-The constitution of the United States does not prevent the creation by military authority of civil courts in captured districts during war. The provost court, instituted by General Butler, in New Orleans, was a valid court. Such courts are military courts, and not courts of the United States. Mechanics', etc., Bank v. Union Bank, 22 Wall., 294.

§ 2079. Military commission.- Under the decision in Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall., 2, a military commission convened in Washington, in 1865, does not have jurisdiction of offenses committed in the state of New York, by a citizen of said state, resident therein, and not connected with the military or naval service. (The offenses charged were the forgery and