Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

In re Lake.

The proceedings in bankruptcy were then pending, and the bankrupt, Lake, was then under an injunction from this court prohibiting him from selling or disposing of any of his property. The respondents are concluded by the notice thus given them by the records of this court, and it does not lie in their mouths to say they are innocent purchasers.

The rule relied upon by the attorneys for respondents arises from the policy of the law in favor of protecting commercial transactions in negotiable or commercial paper made in due course of business, without fraud and for value paid. But an equally inexorable rule requires that all persons shall be held to take notice of judicial proceedings pending in courts having general jurisdiction over them.

The decree will be that respondents be required to deliver the notes in question to Lake's assignee within ten days.

It was also urged that inasmuch as these notes bear Clarke's guaranty of payment to respondents, some order should be made enabling them to avail themselves of it; but as Clarke is not before the court, I think the most the court can do at present is to require the assignee to preserve the notes and guarantie thereon intact for a reasonable time at least, so that they may be used as evidence hereafter, if required in any proceedings by respondents against Clarke.

United States vs. Block 121.

UNITED STATES vs. BLOCK 121.

CIRCUIT COURT-NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS-JUNE, 1872.

CONDEMNATION.

1. CONDEMNATION.-A proceeding under an act of Congress to condemn property is a "suit of a civil nature at common law or in equity,” within the meaning of the Judiciary Act.

2. JUDICIARY ACT-JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS EXTENDS TO SUBSEQUENT CASES.-The construction of that clause cannot be limited to such suits as were known at the time of the passage of the act. Whenever an act is passed which authorizes the commencement of a suit, jurisdiction of the case is thereby vested in the Federal courts, if the character of the parties warrants it, and it comes within the meaning of the statute. The grant of power in this act is prospective.

3. JURISDICTION NOT RESTRICTED TO OLD FORMS.-The clause, "suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity," was used in contradistinction to admiralty and criminal cases. It does not restrict the jurisdiction to old and settled forms, but includes all suits in which legal rights are to be ascertained and determined.

4. EXTENDS TO CONDEMNATION ACCORDING TO STATE STATUTE.-Congress has power to clothe the Federal courts with authority to proceed for the condemnation of property in conformity with a particular State

statute.

5. ACT OF DECEMBER 21ST, 1871.-It was the intention of Congress in this act to give this court jurisdiction of the condemnation proceedings therein contemplated.

6. CONFLICTING CLAIMANTS.-Though the officers of the Government had stated to the owners of the ground the price which the Government was willing to give, yet if other parties had liens and claims against the property, which they were not willing to surrender, condemnation proceedings are necessary.

7. PROCEEDINGS-BY WHOM INSTITUTED.-The Secretary of the Treas ury being the mere officer of the Government, when proceedings are instituted by him under a special law they become necessarily proceedings on the part of the United States; and although the petition be filed by the district attorney, it is within not only the spirit, but the letter of the acts of Congress.

United States vs. Block 121.

This was a petition filed by the District Attorney, in the name of the United States, for the condemnation of Block 121, school section addition to Chicago, commonly called the Bigelow Block.

The various parties claiming an interest in the land or any part of it, whether as owners of the fee, tenants, or by mortgages, judgments, liens, or otherwise, were made parties defendant, and commissioners appointed by the court, in conformity with the state statutes, who heard the evidence as to the value of the property, the damages to be assessed, and the rights and interests of the respective parties. On the coming in of this report some of the parties in interest moved to dismiss the proceedings on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction.

These proceedings were instituted for the purpose of obtaining ground for the erection of a custom-house and government buildings in Chicago, in pursuance of the act of the Legislature of Illinois of December 14th, 1871, and the act of Congress of December 21st, 1871.

The act of the Legislature of Illinois (2 Gross, page 438) is as follows:

"1. The United States shall have power to purchase or condemn, in the manner prescribed by law, upon making just compensation therefor, any land in the state of Illinois required for custom-houses, arsenals, light-houses, national cemeteries. or for other purposes of the government of the United States. "2. The United States may enter upon and occupy any land which may have been or may be purchased, or condemned, or otherwise acquired, and shall have the right of exclusive legislation and concurrent jurisdiction together with the state of Illinios, over such land and the structures thereon, and shall hold the same exempt from all state, county and municipal. taxation."

The act of Congress of December 21, 1871,1 provides, “That

117 U. S. Statutes at Large, 24.

United States vs. Block 121.

the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is authorized and directed to purchase, at private sale or by condemnation, in pursuance of the statutes of the state of Illinois, the remainder of the square of ground not now belonging to the United States, on which the custom-house and post-office building, lately destroyed by fire in the city of Chicago, was situated, if the same can be obtained either by private purchase or condemnation, at what, in his judgment, is a fair and reasonable price for the ground; but if not, then it shall be his duty to purchase, in one of the ways aforesaid, one of the twenty-four squares of ground nearest to and immediately surrounding the square on which said building destroyed by fire was located. Provided, That no money hereby appropriated shall be used or applied for the purpose until a valid title to the land for the site of such building shall be vested in the United States, and until the state of Illinois shall cede its jurisdiction over said site, and shall also duly release and relinquish to the United States the right to tax or in any way assess said site or the property of the United States that may be thereon during the time that the United States shall be or remain the owner thereof."

*

*

*

Edward Roby, for the motion.

There are large classes of cases wholly within this judicial power, which it is held the courts of original jurisdiction cannot entertain, notwithstanding the clear implication of the constitution. Cary vs. Curtis, 3 Howard, 245; Insurance Co. vs. Ritchie, 5 Wallace, 541; McIntire vs. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504; McClung vs. Silliman, 6 Wheaton, 604.

Though state forms may sometimes be adopted by the courts for convenience, state laws cannot confer jurisdiction, nor prescribe the modes or forms of proceeding in federal courts. Riggs vs. Johnson Co., 6 Wallace, 178-9, 195; Bronson vs. Kinzie, 1 Howard, 314; Cases cited in Brightly's Federal Digest "Execution," 1; Boyle vs. Zacharie, 6 Peters, 648, 658.

United States vs. Block 121.

J. O. Glover, District Attorney, and L. II. Boutell, Assistant District Attorney, for the United States.

The United States circuit court has original cognizance of all suits of a civil nature at common law, when the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners. Act 24th of Sept., 1789, § 11, 1 U. S. Statutes at Large, 78; U. S. Constitution, Art. 3. 82; Act of March 3, 1815, § 4, 3 U. S. Statutes at Large, 245.

The act of March 3, 1815, gives the United States jurisdiction to sue, irrespective of the amount in controversy. Postmaster General vs. Early, 12 Wheaton, 136.

By cases in law are to be understood suits in which legal rights are to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where cquitable rights alone are to be recognized, and equitable remedies administered, or where the proceeding is in the admiralty. Parsons vs. Bedford, 3 Peters, 447; Robinson vs. Campbell, 3 Wheaton, 212.

Parties entitled to sue in the courts of the United States, are in general entitled to pursue, in such courts, all the remedies for the vindication of their rights which the local laws of the state authorize to be pursued in its own courts.

Such is a statutory proceeding for partition. Ex parte Biddle, 2 Munn, 472; STORY, J.; Mason vs. Boom Co., 3 Wallace, jr., 252; 20 Legal Intelligencer, 12; Bank of Hamilton vs. Dudley, 2 Peters, 492.

The legislature of a state cannot, by enacting a special remedy in their own county courts, take away the privilege conferred by the constitution and laws of the Union upon citizens of other states, to sue in the courts of the United States. Mason vs. Boom Co., 3 Wallace, jr., 252.

Consult also on the general question of jurisdiction, 1 Abbott's U. S. Practice, 230-4; Parsons vs. Lyman, 32 Connecticut, 566; The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 522; The Orleans vs. Phobus, 11 Peters, 175; Le Roy vs. Nathan, 22 Howard, 132; Toland vs. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Watson vs. Tarpley, 18 Howard, 517; U. S. vs. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115; Clark vs. Smith, 13 Peters, 195; Parker vs. Overman, 18 Howard,

« AnteriorContinuar »