INDEX.

587

State Courts, does not apply to cases
arising under the Internal Revenue
laws. Stevens v. Mack,

* *

*

514

2. That provision of the 14th section is
in the alternative, and under it an
offender may be tried either in the
first brought,
District into which he
or in the District in which he is ap-
prehended, under lawful authority,
for trial for the offence.

3.

22. Under the 45th section of the Inter-
nal Revenue Act of July 13th, 1866,
(14 U. S. Stat. at Large, 163,) which
provides, that "all distilled spirits
found elsewhere than in a bonded
warehouse, not having been removed
from such warehouse according to
law, and the tax imposed by law
on the same not having been paid,
and
shall be forfeited;
the burden of proof shall be upon
the claimant of said spirits, to show
that the requirements of law in re-
gard to the same have been com-
plied with," where rectified spirits
are seized while in process of sale
by a rectifier as free of tax, the bur
den of proof is on the claimant of
such spirits to show that the tax on 4.
them has been paid. United States
v. 6 Barrels,

See CRIMES, 5, 6, 12.
INCOME TAX.

INVOICE.

See CRIMES, 10, 11.

J

JURISDICTION.

542

5.

id.

An offence commenced to be com-
mitted on board of an American ves-
sel, lying at the time in a river which
is an arm of the sea, on the coast of
Africa, and continued uninterrupted-
ly to a point in the Atlantic Ocean
several miles from land, is within the
jurisdiction of the United States, and
of a Circuit Court thereof.
States v. Gordon,

United

18

A suit commenced by summons in a
State Court of New York, under the
135th section of the Code of Proced-
ure of that State, against a foreign
corporation having property in that
State, followed by a warrant of at-
tachment issued under section 227
and the following sections of the
same Code, against the property
of the defendants in that State, and
duly served by attaching property, is
"a suit," within the meaning of the
12th section of the Judiciary Act of
September 24th, 1789, (1 U. S. Stat.
at Large, 79,) providing for the re-
moval of suits into this Court.
ney v. Globe Bank,

Bar-
107

This Court has jurisdiction of such a
suit, if properly removed, although it
could not, by reason of the provisions
of the 11th section of the same Act,
have compelled the defendants, by
compulsory process, to submit to its
suit originally
jurisdiction in a
brought against them in this Court.
id.

1. Semble, That, under the 14th section
of the Act of March 3d, 1825 (4 U. S.
Stat. at Large, 118), which provides,
that the trial of all offences which
shall be committed upon the high
seas, or elsewhere, out of the limits of
any State or District, shall be in the
District where the offender is appre-
hended, or into which he may be first
brought, an offender captured on the
high seas by a public armed vessel of
the United States, and ordered to
New York for trial, and put on board
of a vessel destined for Hampton
Roads, and taken to Hampton Roads,
and there transferred to another ves-
sel, by which he is taken to New
York, where he is arrested for the
offence, is not to be regarded as hav-
ing been brought into the District in 7. A suit to recover damages from a

kill, committed in the Navy Yard at
Brooklyn. United States v. Don-
lan,
284

12. Where a vessel was carrying, under
a charter party, a cargo that was the
property of the United States, and the
general owner, through the master,
retained the possession and naviga-
tion of the vessel, and the master, at
a port of distress, executed a bottom-
ry bond on both vessel and cargo:
Held, on a libel filed on such bond, in
Admiralty, against vessel and cargo,
that the Court had jurisdiction of the
case as regarded the vessel, but that
the cargo, being the property of, and
in the possession of, the United States,
was not subject to seizure or attach-
ment, nor could a suit be instituted
against the Government in respect to
it. The Othello,
342

8. A suit against an Assistant Treas-
urer of the United States, in a State
Court, to recover the value of certain
bonds issued by the United States,
which, when they came into his hands
from the plaintiff, he, under instruc-
tions from the Treasury Department
of the United States, retained, on the
ground that they were unlawfully put
into circulation, as against the party
to whom they were issued, is not a
suit which can be removed into this 13.

Court under the 3d section of the Act
of March 2d, 1833, (4 U. S. Stat, at
Large, 633,) which provides for the
removal into this Court of a
"suit
commenced in a Court of any State
against any officer of the United
States, or other person, for or on ac
count of any act done under the rev-
enue laws of the United States, or
under color thereof, or for or on ac-
count of any right, authority, or title,
set up or claimed by such officer, or
other person, under any such law of
the United States." Vietor v. Cisco,
128

Under the Constitution of the Unit-
ed States, causes may be removed
from State Courts to the Circuit
Courts of the United States after, as
well as before, judgment. Murray v.
Patrie,

343

14. Original jurisdiction may be con-
ferred by Congress upon the Circuit
Courts of the United States, by the
removal into them, from the State
Courts, of cases arising under the
Constitution, the laws of the United
States, and treaties.

id.

15. Such a case arises when the ques-
tion assumes such a form that the
judicial power is capable of acting on

16. When a case is so removed, the
question whether the removal is in
violation of the Constitution, and
whether the case is one arising under
the Constitution, &c., may be raised
on the trial.
id.
17. Where a plaintiff has otherwise a
right to sue, by virtue of his citizen-
ship, in a Court of the United States,
it is no objection to the jurisdiction
of the Court, that he acquired the
title on which he sues for the pur-
pose of enabling him to bring the
suit. Osborne v. Brooklyn City R. R.
366

Co.,