a

sory notes, or other choses in action, except foreign bills of exchange. (1) This restriction applies to assignees by operation of law, but it does not apply to notes payable to bearer;b nor to suits by Indorsee v. Indorser, for that creates a new contract; 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 appellate jurisdiction from all final decrees and judgments in the district courts, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, cxceeds 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 writ of error.f And if any suit be commenced in a state court against an *303 alien, or by a citizen of the state in which the suit is brought against a citizen of another state, 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.g 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

a Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332.

↳ Bullard v. Bell, 1 Mason, 251. Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Peters, 318. Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheaton, 146.

d Bean v. Smith, 2 Mason, 252. Dexter v. Smith, Ib. 303.

• Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheaton, 904.

Acts of Congress of September 28th, 1789, sec. 11. 21, 22; March 3d, 1808, sec. 11, and March 3d, 1803, sec. 2.

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.

(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. R. 141. 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 constitu tional powers of congress; and the court held that it was. See, also, Smith v. Kernochen, 7 How. R. 198. Although the assignor make the assignment for the express purpose of giving the U. S. Courts jurisdiction, they will have jurisdiction, unless the assignee was also privy to or entertained such purpose.

Courts.

rights growing out of inventions and discoveries, and to protect such rights by injunction. 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.b

District (3.) The district as well as the circuit courts are derived from the power granted to congress by the constitution, of constituting tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. The United States are at present divided into thirty-five districts, which generally consist of an entire state; but in New-York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, there are more districts than one. A court is established in each district, with some exceptions, consisting of one judge, who holds annually, in most of them, four stated terms, and in some of them only three, or two, or one; and he holds also special courts in his discretion. There are at present only twentynine district judges; and it seems to be practically settled, since the act of 1801, that congress may, in their discretion, abolish the inferior courts, and create new ones under a different organization.

The district courts have, exclusive of the state courts,

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

b Turner v. The Bank of America, 4 Dall. Rep. 11. M'Cormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheaton, 192. See, also, post, p. 314. The Circuit Courts are not authorized to issue writs of mandamus, except when necessary for the exercise of their acknowledged jurisdiction. M'Intyre v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504. It will therefore lie to a district court refusing to proceed to judgment in a case subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Smith v. Jackson, 1 Paine, 453. It is a general principle of the common law, that where a limited authority is given, if the party to whom it is given extends his jurisdiction to objects not within it, his warrant will be no protection to the officers who act under it. Morrell v. Martin, 3 Manning & Granger, 581.

Art. 1. sec. 8.

*cognizance of all lesser crimes and offences cogniza- *304 ble under the authority of the United States, and committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas, and which are punishable by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or when corporal punishment, not exceeding thirty stripes, is to be inflicted. They have also exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under imposts, navigation or trade laws of the United States, where the seizures are made upon the high seas, or on waters within their districts navigable from the sea with vessels of ten or more tons burthen;b and also of all other seizures made under the laws of the United States; and also of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under those laws. They have also cognizance, concurrent with the circuit courts and the state courts, of causes where an alien sues for a tort committed in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States; and of all suits at common law, in which the United States are plaintiffs, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to two hundred dollars. They have jurisdiction, likewise, exclusive of the courts of the several states, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the magnitude which has been mentioned. They have also cognizance of complaints by whomsoever instituted, in cases of captures made within the waters

By the act of congress of August 23d, 1842, c. 188, and of August 8th, 1846, c. 98, the District Courts were declared to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Circuit Courts of all crimes and offences against the United States, the punishment of which is not capital.

↳ The exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, is understood to be exclusive as between the District and Circuit Courts, and that the jurisdiction may be concurrent with courts of common law, in cases in which a common law remedy may be adequate and proper, inasmuch as the judiciary act of 1789, sec. 9, when on this very point, "saves to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it."

© Act of Congress of September 24th, 1789, c. 20. sec. 9. By act of congress of August 8th, 1846, c. 105, the District and Circuit Courts, and the commissioners to take affidavits, &c., have jurisdiction as justices of the peace against offenders against the United States, and, on the application of foreign consuls and commercial agents, to enforce their awards and decrees by arrest and imprisonment, &c.

of the United States, or within a marine league of its coast;a and to repeal patents unduly obtained.b

The judges of the district courts have also, in cases where the party has not had a reasonable time to apply to the Circuit Court, as full power to grant writs of injunction to operate within their respective districts, as is exercised by the

judges of the Supreme Court, and to continue until the *305 *next Circuit Court. They may also grant injunctions, in particular cases, under the act for the better organization of the treasury department.

In addition to these general powers vested in the district courts, they have, in those cases where the districts are so situated as not to permit conveniently the presence of a judge of the Supreme Court, the powers of a circuit court superadded to their ordinary powers of a district court.e

To guard against the inconvenience of a difference of opinion between the circuit judge and the district judge, when holding together a circuit court, it is provided by law, that in all cases of appeal or error, from the District to the Circuit Court, judgment is to be rendered in conformity to the opinion of the judge of the Supreme Court presiding in such Circuit Court. And in all other cases of a disagreement of opinion between the circuit and district judges, the point may be certified into the Supreme Court for its decision; (1) but in no case shall imprisonment be allowed, or punishment be inflicted, where the judges of the Circuit Court are divided in opinion upon the question.f

The superior courts of the several territories of the United

Act of April 20th, 1818, sec. 7.

b Act of February 21st, 1793, c. 11. sec. 10. By the act of congress of August 23d, 1842, c. 188, the District Courts, as courts of admiralty, and the Circuit Courts, as courts of equity, are to be deemed always open for the purpose of filing pleadings and issuing processes, and for interlocutory motions and orders.

Act of February 13th, 1807, sec. 1.

& Act of Congress of May 15th, 1820, sec. 4 and 5.

• Act of February 19th, 1831.

Act of April 29th, 1802. sec. 5, 6.

(1) The question, upon which the disagreement takes place, must be specifically stated. It is not sufficient to certify generally, that the judges disagreed upon the whole case as to what judgment should be rendered. Saddler v. Hoover, 7 How. R. 646.

States, in which no district court is established, have the enlarged jurisdiction of circuit courts, subject to revision by writ of error and appeal to the Supreme Court. The district and territorial judges of the United States are required to reside within their respective jurisdictions; and no federal judge can act as counsel, or be engaged in the practice of the law.b

ed in state courts.

*(4.) The state courts are, in some cases, invested, *306 Duties vestby acts of congress, with the cognizance of cases arising under the laws of the United States. By the acts of March 8th, 1806, and April 21st, 1808, and March 3d, 1815, the county courts within, or adjoining the revenue districts in certain parts of the states of New-York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, were authorized to take cognizance of prosecutions for fines, penalties and forfeitures, arising under the revenue laws of the United States; and the state or county courts adjoining any collection district, in relation to taxes or internal duties which may, at any time hereafter, be assessed, have cognizance of all suits for taxes, duties, fines, penalties and forfeitures arising thereon.c

In attending to this general survey of the organization of the judiciary establishment of the United States, it will be perceived, that all the great features of the system are to be found in the act of congress which was passed in September, 1789, at the first session of the first congress under the present constitution. That act has stood the test of experience since that time, with very little alteration or improvement; and this fact is no small evidence of the wisdom of the plan, and of its adaptation to the interest and convenience of the country. The act of 1789 was the work of much profound reflection, and of great legal knowledge; and the system then formed and reduced to practice has been so successful, and so beneficial in its operation, that the administration of justice in the federal courts has been constantly rising in influence and reputation.

The principal officers of the courts are attorneys and counsellors, clerks and marshals.

Act of March 3d, 1805, sec. 1.

Act of December 18, 1812, sec. 1.

• Vide infra, pp. 400–405.