the return term of the process. We believe, however, that this is done in practice, but we think not against the will or without the consent of the libellant.

If a suit is brought in the district court, and it appears that the judge "is in anyways concerned in interest, or has been of counsel for either party, or is so related to, or connected with, either party, as to render it improper for him, in his opinion, to sit on the trial of such suit or action, it shall be the duty of such judge, on application of either party, to cause the fact to be entered on the records of the court; and also an order that an authenticated copy thereof, with all the proceedings in such suit or action, shall be forthwith certified to the next circuit court of the district; and if there be no circuit court in such district, to the next circuit court in the State; and if there be no circuit court in such State, to the most convenient circuit court in an adjoining State; which circuit court shall, upon such record being filed with the clerk thereof, take cognizance thereof, in the like manner as if such suit or action had been originally commenced in that court, and shall proceed to hear and determine the same accordingly; and the jurisdiction of such circuit court shall extend to all such cases so removed as were cognizable in the district court from which the same was removed." 2

We have spoken hitherto only of the courts which have admiralty jurisdiction within the United States; and it is certain that no courts can have this jurisdiction in the States but those which are established by Congress in pursuance of and in con-, formity with the third article of the Constitution of the United States. But it is held that this limitation does not extend in this respect, at least, to the Territories; because Congress legislates for them with the combined powers of the State and general governments. An act of a Territory created a court with authority to take jurisdiction of a case of salvage; and in such a case which

1 In Ex parte Robbins, 2 Gallis. 320, 322, Story, J., said: " Admitting that the district court can deliver property on bail in vacation, and before the return term of the process (which admits of very serious doubts), no delivery on bail could properly be made without notice to the district-attorney (the United States being interested in the suit), and a hearing before the district judge." See also Brig Alligator, 1 Gallis. 145, 148.

* Act of 1821, c. 51, 3 U. S. Stats. at Large, 643.

See ante, p. 154.

came before it, a decree of sale for salvage of a cargo which had been stranded and brought within its Territorial limits, was made by the Territorial court, and sustained by the Supreme Court, and a sale made under it was held to be valid and to have changed the property.1

1 American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, was as follows: The insurance company libelled 356 bales of cotton, in the South Carolina district, demanding restitution thereof, on the ground that the property had been abandoned to them by the owners. Canter, the claimant, claimed on the ground that they had been sold to him, by virtue of an order of a Territorial court of Florida, consisting of a notary and five jurors, to pay salvage assessed by them at 76 per cent. The district judge pronounced this decree a nullity, and ordered the restoration of the cotton, subject to 50 per cent salvage. The circuit court decreed the whole cotton to the claimant, on the ground that the proceedings of the court at Key West were legal, and transferred the property; and this decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall delivering the opinion.

CHAPTER III.

OF APPEALS GENERALLY.

By an appeal, the judgment and decree of the court are suspended; and the whole cause, both as to its law and its fact, is to be heard de novo in the appellate court. Nor is the cause a res adjudicata, until the final sentence of the appellate court. Any statute, therefore, which is passed before such final decree, is to be considered, and if the case before the court arose on a statute which is repealed 2 or expires by its own lim

1 Anonymous, 1 Gallis. 22. It was held in this case that the circuit court had authority to allow amendments in revenue cases or proceedings in rem brought by appeal from the district court. In Gloucester Ins. Co. v. Younger, 2 Curtis, C. C. 322, 335, the case came before the circuit court under an agreement that the decision of the district judge should be final on all questions of fact, and that no evidence should be introduced in the appellate court except the opinion of the district judge, or a statement of facts made thereon; but that all questions of law from facts proved, were to be open on appeal. Mr. Justice Curtis disapproved of this course and offered to discharge the agreement, but as neither party desired it, he determined the case on the agreement, although he stated that he had encountered much embarrassment in doing so, and should execute a similar agreement afterwards with much reluctance, if at all.

* An interesting case which finally turned on this point occurred in Louisiana. The Act of Congress of March 2, 1807, 2 U. S. Stats. at Large, 428, passed for the prevention of the slave-trade, directed that any vessel hovering about and intending to land negroes on the coast of the United States, should be forfeited, and the negroes delivered to any persons appointed by the several States for the purpose of disposing of them. The Josefa Segunda was libelled under this act, and the cargo of negroes delivered to the sheriff of Louisiana, in accordance with a statute of that State, which was passed in pursuance of the act of Congress, and which also directed that one half the proceeds of the sale of such negroes should be delivered to the treasurer of the Charity Hospital at New Orleans, and one half to the commanding officer of the capturing vessel, meaning the public vessel contemplated by the act of Congress. In 1820, the final decree of condemnation was pronounced in the Supreme Court. 5 Wheat. 338. In the mean time, the sheriff, by the consent of all parties, had sold the negroes and lodged the proceeds in the United States Bank, subject to the order of the court below. To the proceeds of this sale there were seven claimants, none of whom fell within the description, in the statute of Louisiana, of the individuals who should be entitled

itation before the final decree is passed, the case is at an end. But if the property does not follow the case, the court in whose

to them. Their claims were, therefore, rejected by the Supreme Court, in 1825. 10 Wheat. 312. As to the proceeds of the sale of the vessel, the court said, 10 Wheat. 331, 332, "Upon the best consideration which we have been able to give the case, we are of opinion that it is a casus omissus, or rather that all the beneficial interest vests in the United States. . . . . The remarks which have already been made, dispose of the case as far as respects the proceeds of the vessel; and we think they are decisive as to the claim to the proceeds of the sale of the negroes. The case, as to this matter, is also a casus omissus in the act of Louisiana."

In 1830, the case came up again, nom. United States v. Preston, 3 Pet. 57, on "appeal from so much of the decree of the court below as awarded to the State of Louisiana, the proceeds of the sales of certain slaves." The court said, "that as the final condemnation in this court took place March 13, 1820, and as previous to that time was passed the act of March 3, 1819 (3 U. S. Stats. at Large, 450 and 532), by which a new arrangement is made as to the disposal of persons of color, seized and brought in under any of the acts prohibiting the traffic in slaves, the power to deliver them to the order of the States was taken away before the final decree of this court." Then, according to the principle of Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch, 281, if they had been specifically before the court at the date of that decree, they must have been delivered, not to the State according to the act of 1807, but to the United States, according to the act of 1819. But they had already been sold, and the court said: "We would not be understood to intimate that the United States are entitled to this money, for they had no power to sell. Nor do we feel bound to remove the difficulties which grow out of this state of things." This was indeed a curious case. The slaves were sold by consent of the parties, before final condemnation of the vessel. The disposal of them was in violation of the law regulating such matters at the time of the decree. The sheriff, therefore, acted wrongfully, but was not liable to anybody, as he had only converted forfeited property into another form. But, under the laws relating to the slave-trade, there was no one who could claim this money; neither the State of Louisiana nor the claimants, for so the court decided; not the United States, for there is no law by which the United States receives the price of slaves; not the slaves themselves, of course. The $65,000 deposited by the sheriff of the parish of New Orleans in the United States Bank lies there yet (or its remains lie there), so far as we know or can infer from the law.

1 In Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch, 281, Marshall, C. J., said: "In admiralty cases, an appeal suspends the sentence altogether, and it is not res adjudicata until the final sentence of the appellate court is pronounced. The cause in the appellate court is to be heard de novo, as if no sentence had been passed. . . . In prize causes, the principle has never been disputed, and in the instance court, it is stated in 2 Browne's Civil Law, that in cases of appeal it is lawful to allege what has not before been alleged, and to prove what has not before been proved. The court is, therefore, of opinion that this cause is to be considered as if no sen

custody it remains may always make any proper and necessary order respecting it.1

Questions have arisen as to the effect of joinder of parties on the right of appeal. The statute defines the amount which gives the right; and in suits for torts, unless an ad damnum be claimed equal to the amount which gives the right of appeal, that right does not exist. But in admiralty, parties are permitted to join, for convenience and economy, whose rights and interests are so distinct and independent that they could not be joined at common law. And it seems to be now settled that no party can appeal, unless he has, himself, and separately from others, a claim, or unless the opposite party has recovered against him, separately, an amount which, by itself, is equal to that which, by the terms of the statute, gives the right of appeal. Thus, all the crew of a ship may join in libel for wages; but only he whose claim exceeds fifty dollars, separately considered, can appeal to the circuit court; and only he whose claim exceeds two thousand dollars can appeal thence to the Supreme Court.2 And where several libels were filed by shippers of cargo to recover for damages done to their goods, and the actions were ordered to be consolidated by the court, it was held that the interests of the parties were distinct, and no appeal would lie, except where the separate amount demanded by each libellant exceeded two thousand dollars.3 When, however, many libellants join in one libel, and their interests are joint, although not coequal, then an appeal lies, if the total amount exceed the sum required by the statute, although the amounts which would belong to each one is less. If a suit is brought tence had been pronounced; and if no sentence had been pronounced, it has long been settled, on general principles, that after the expiration or repeal of a law no penalty can be enforced nor punishment inflicted for violations of the law committed while it was in force, unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute." See also United States v. Ship Helen, 6 Cranch, 203; Schooner Rachel v. United States, 6 Cranch, 329.

1 The Grotius, 1 Gallis. 503, per Story, J.; The Collector, 6 Wheat. 194. 2 Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Pet. 143.

Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. 347.

• Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. 3. In this case, the representatives of a person deceased claimed, under a bill in equity, moneys which Shields, the administrator, had converted to his own use. The complainants filed a bill in the Chancery Court of Kentucky, and obtained a decree which exceeded $ 2,000, the portion due each complainant being decreed to him separately, and being less than