Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

that jurisdiction is not only the power to hear and determine, but also the power to render the particular judgment entered in the particular case. 1

were corain

to

an

non judice, the court re- ing magistrate, as that is a matter which fused the writ, MR. Chief Justice ought to be decided by the magistrate. MARSHALL saying: “We have no power Ex parte Smith. 3 H. & N. 227; and to examine the proceedings on a writ where the jurisdiction of the court to of error, and it would be strange if, try and punish an offence is not denied, under color of a writ to liberate an in- another court on a hearing in habeas cordividual from unlawful imprisonment, pus will not enquire into the authority of we could substantially reverse a judg- the court to pass the sentence imposed, ment which the law has placed beyond nor is it necessary to set out the auour control. An imprisonment under thority of the court to pass such sena judgment cannot be unlawful unless ence on the return. Ex parte Brennan, that judgment be an absolute nullity; 10 Q. B. 492 (59 E. C. L.). and it is not a nullity if the court has In the case of inferior courts in Enggeneral jurisdiction of the subject, land the sentence will be enquired into. although it should be erroneous.” Ex Thus in a case where a justice of the parte Watkins, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 193, 203. peace was empowered to impose a Relying on this decision it was held in penalty, half of which was to go to the the United States circuit court, sitting in informer and half to the overseers of New York, that "The circuit judge has the poor, and the justice gave the no jurisdiction to review, on habeas whole of the penalty

the corpus, the judgment of the circuit court, overseers of the poor, it was held on a conviction and sentence on an in- that the judgment was void, and that dictment, on an allegation that the the justice having arrested the defendstatute under which such sentence was ant for nonpayment of the penalty was imposed had been repealed before such liable for damages therefor in sentence was passed." In re Callicot, action of trespass. Griffith v. Haines & Blatch. (U. S.) 89.

et al., 2 M. & W. 335 (1837). This, And so it has been held in the state however, simply follows the general courts that, in case of a commitment rule that the record of a justice of the under the judgment of a court having peace must show jurisdiction. jurisdiction, the record of the court 1. Definition Resulting from the will only be looked into on a habeas Latest Cases.—There is a very clearly corpus proceeding to ascertain whether defined attempt in the latest cases in a judgment exists, without regard to the United States, however, to escape

question whether it be right or from the position that the judgment of wrong.

Ex parte Winston, 9 Nev. 71; a court having jurisdiction to hear and People v. Shea, 3 Park. Cas. (N. Y.), deterinine is conclusive, by adding to 562.

the definition of jurisdiction a That this is the law in England element, viz: that jurisdiction is not would seem to be clear. For while on merely the power to hear and detera writ of habeas corpus enquiry will mine, but also the power to render the be made into the question whether the particular judgment which court had lawfully acquired jurisdiction rendered. Thus in a recent case (1873), in the cases, thus noticing that an ar- in which it was decided that where a rest was made on Sunday and county court having jurisdiction to autherefore illegal. Ex parte Eggington, thorize a sale of a decedent's estate for 2 El. & Bl. 717 (75 E. C. L.). Or that his debts does autnorize it, and the the party petitioner was privileged sale is made, the sale must be presumed from arrest. Ex parte Dakins, 16 C. in this court to have been regularly B. 77 (81 E. C. L.). Or that the offence made. Mr. Justice SWAYNE, in dewas not indictable. Bushel's Case, 6 livering the opinion of the court, said: Howell's St. Trials 999. Yet it has “The settled rule of law is that jurisdicbeen expressly decided that it is not tion having attached in the original competent at the hearing on a habeas case, everything done within the power corpus proceeding for a person to show of that jurisdiction, when collaterally by affidavit that the offence of which he questioned, is to be held conclusive of was convicted not committed the rights of the parties, unless imwithin the jurisdiction of the convict- peached for fraud." Cornett

the

new

was

was

was

V. was

to

no

to

on

error

Williams, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 226, 250. and it appeared that such revision had

And in 1876, in a case where the title been directed and made in the manner to certain real estate was involved, it prescribed by law, the supreme court, on was held that a prior confiscation of this a writof habeas corpus, refused to enquire real estate, in a proceeding for a for- into the question whether there was in feiture in which the record showed that fact a mistake, and whether the change no notice had been given to the owner, in the sentence was justifiable. was void. MR. JUSTICE FIELD, in de- parte Reed, 100 U. S. 13. livering the opinion of the court, refers In 1879 in the election cases arising to the preceding cases, quotes the out of the act of congress making cerlanguage used in Cornett v. Williams, tain acts by election officers a penal of20 Wall. (U. S.) 226, 250 (cited supra), fence against the United States, the suas an accurate statement of the doctrine, preme court decided that the jurisdicand further says that “the doctrine” tion exercisable by them in habeas that when a court has once acquired corpus proceedings extended to an enjurisdiction, it has a right to decide quiry into the question whether the act every question which arises in the cause, under which the petitioner had been and its judgment, however erroneous, tried, convicted and sentenced was or cannot be collaterally assailed, is un- not constitutional, whether the doubtedly correct as a general proposi court had jurisdiction to review the tion, but, like all general propositions, is judgment by writ of error or not: Ex subject to many qualifications in its ap- parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371. plication

The doctrine is only And in the Kuklux case, MR. JUSTICE correct when the court proceeds after Miller, in delivering the unanimous acquiring jurisdiction of the cause, ac- opinion of the court, says: “That this cording the established modes court has

general authority governing the class to which the case review

or appeal the belongs, and does not transcend in the judgments of the circuit courts of extent or character of its judgment the the United States in cases within law which is applicable to it. Windsor their criminal jurisdiction is beyond 7. McVeigh, 93 N. S. 274, 282, 283. question, but it is equally well settled that

In like manner, although it has been when a prisoner is held under the expressly decided in the United States sentence of any court of the United courts ihat the question whether a States in regard to a matter wholly bematter for which a party is indicted in yond or without the jurisdiction of the the district court is or is not a crime court, it is not only within the authority against the laws of the United States of the supreme court, but it is its duty is within the jurisdiction of said district to enquire into the cause of commitcourt, whose decision thereon will not ment when the matter is properly be reviewed in the supreme court by brought to its attention, and if found to habeas corpus. Ex parte Watkins, 3 be, as charged, a matter of which such Pet. (U. S.) 193, 203; Ex parte Parks, a court had no jurisdiction, to discharge 93 U. S. 18. Yet in a case where a a prisoner from confinement. court had imposed a fine and imprison- It is, however, to be carefully obment, and the statute only conferred served that this latter principle does power to punish by fine or imprison- not authorize the court to convert the ment, and the fine was paid, and the writ of habeas corpus into a writ of error court then, at the same term, modified by which the errors of law commitied by its judgment by imposing imprison- the court that passed the sentence can ment instead of the fornier sentence, be reviewed here; for if that court had the supreme court, on a writ of habeas jurisdiction of the party and of the otcorpus, released the prisoner, on the fence for which he was tried, and has ground that the second sentence was not exceeded its powers in the sentence void for want of power to impose it. which it pronounced, this court can en. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 163. quire no further.” Ex parte Yarbrough, A strong dissenting opinion was, how- 110 U. S. 651, 653. ever, filed by Mr. JUSTICE CLIFFORD, In accordance with this modern idea and MR.JUSTICE Strong also dissented. of jurisdiction is the late case (1887). But in a subsequent case, where a court in the United States supreme court of martial had revised its sentence and Rosenbaum v. Bauer. In that case a imposed one more severe, and it ap- suit was begun in a State court between peared that the court had power to so citizens of different States, in which the revise their sentence in case of mistake, plaintiff prayed for a mandamus. The

re

case was removed to the United States will be treated as a nullity even in a circuit court under the act of congress collateral proceeding. Munday v. of March 3rd, 1875 (18 St. U. S. 470), Vail, 34 N. J. L. 418. authorizing such removal of any suit of And in proceedings in habeas corpus, a civil nature, at law or in equity, in in many of the States, the courts at the which there shall be a controversy be hearing have examined into the questween citizens of different States; and tion whether the statute creating the further providing "that if. it crime for which the sentence was imshall appear to the satisfaction of said posed was or was not constitutional. circuit court at any time after such suit Ex parte Hardy (Ala.), 13 Cent. L. has been

removed thereto, J. 50; McCarthy v. Hinman, 35 that such suit does not really and sub- Conn. 538; Ex parte Nightingale, 12 stantially involve a dispute or contro- Fla. 272, 277. So it has been held that versy properly within the jurisdiction the court is bound to discharge the of said circuit court, the said circuit prisoner where the act charged as crimicourt shall

remand it.” In nal is necessarily innocent or justifiaaccordance with the latter provision of ble, or where it is the mere assertion of said act, the United States court a constitutional right. People ex rel. manded the case, on the ground that Hackley v. Kelly, 24 N. Y. 75. Where they had no power to award a writ there was a total want or an excess of of mandamus, except as ancillary to jurisdiction. Ex parte Hardy (Ala.), some other proceeding before them es- 13 Cent. L. J. 50. While in the celetablishing a demand and reducing it to brated Tweed case it was held that the judgment. On writ of error to the su- jurisdiction of the court to render the preme court it was held that the case particular judgment is a proper subject had been properly remanded. Rosen- of enquiry. People ex rel. Tweed v. baum v. Bauer, 7 Supr. Ct. Rep. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559. To the same 633.

effect is Ex parte Page, 49 Mo. 291, In some of the State courts this idea where the court say that if the error in seems to have been included in their exercising jurisdiction was provable by definition of jurisdiction. Thus, “Juris- extrinsic evidence dehors the record, diction is the power or authority to pro. the court would not interfere in a nounce the law on the case presented, habeas corpus proceeding, but where and to pass upon and settle by its judg- the error was patent on the face of the ment the rights of the parties touching record they would interfere. In that the subject matter in controversy, and case the trial court had imposed a sento enforce such sentence.” Ex parte tence of ten years' imprisonment for Walker, 25 Ala. 81.

grand larceny, and the statute allowed A power constitutionally conferred seven years at most, and the prisoner upon a judge or magistrate, to take was discharged. cognizance of and decide causes

And in Wisconsin, in a divorce procording to law, and to carry his sen- ceeding, the custody of a child had been tence into execution." Succession of awarded to the father, and the mother Weigel, 17 La. An. 70.

abducted the child, and was thereupon "The word “jurisdiction' is a term of adjudged guilty of a contempt of court large and comprehensive import and and ordered to restore the child, pay a embraces every kind of juidcial action fine of one dollar, and stand committed upon the subject matter, from finding to the county jail until she had comthe indictment to pronouncing the sen- plied with the order. The woman tence.” Hopkins v. Com., 3 Metc. failing to comply with this decree was (Mass.) 462.

accordingly imprisoned, but in a writ Jurisdiction is defined to be the au- of habeas corpus the supreme court rethority of law to act officially in the leased her, because under the State matter then in hand. Jones v. Brown, statute the court below had no

thority to enter such an order in the Jurisdiction in courts is the power proceeding for the contempt, that thereand authority to

declare the law. fore the order was in excess of the Mills v.Com., 13 Pa. St. 627,630. court's jurisdiction and void. RYAN,

And there are a number of decisions J., however, filed a strong dissenting which support this definition. Thus it opinion, on the ground that this was has been decided that a decree in confounding jurisdiction and judgment, equity, which is entirely aside of the and that the petitioner's remedy was issue raised in the record is invalid, and not a writ of habeas corpus, but an

ac

au

54 lowa 74, 79.

Wis. 411.

part of it.

was

appeal to the supreme court to reverse two papers which were attached to a the order. Re Ida Louisa Pierce, 44 former will as though they had been

In a still later case (1888) in Texas, The decisions in the State courts are, where A brought an action in a Texas however, not harmonious. Thus in court against B, a nonresident, by at- South Carolina, 1877, the court, relying taching his property, and causing a inter alia on the case of Ex parte citation to be published, all of which Brennan, 102 B. 492 (59 E. C. L.), cited was by statute made requisite to a valid supra, held that though a prisoner conjudgment against a nonresident, and victed of assault with intent to kill canafter the publication of the citation, B, not lawfully be sentenced to confinehaving entered no appearance. A filed ment in the penitentiary at hard labor, an amended petition, setting up an en- yet such sentence is not void, but only tirely new cause of action, on which voidable, and relief can be obtained by judgment by default rendered appeal only and not by habeas corpus. without any further citation being pub- In re Bond, 9 S. Car. So; s. C., 30 Am. lished or service had on B. In a sub- Rep. 20. sequent action to try title brought in a And in Indiana in 1885, in a criminal court of the same State, where plaintiff proceeding where the court had jurisclaimed title through a sale on the diction of the offence charged and of above judgment, it was held that the the defendant, the defendant entered a court had only acquired jurisdiction of plea of guilty of murder in the first dethe defendant as to the cause of action gree, and the court sentenced him to imset forth in the pleadings on file when prisonment for life, on a petition for a the citation was published; that the writ of habeas corpus, it was held that, cause of action on which the judgment although the court erred in not calling was rendered in his favor was the cause a jury to say in their discretion whether of action stated in the pleadings on file the defendant should suffer the penalty the day the judgment was rendered; of death or be imprisoned for life, as and to answer that no notice by publi- required by the law of the State, the cation was given to B and he did not judgment was not, therefore, void, nor appear, and therefore the judgment was could it be assailed collaterally on void. Stuart et al. v. Anderson et al. habeas corpus proceedings. Lowery v. (Tex.), 8 S. W. Rep. 295.

Howard (Ind.), 1 West. Rep. 486; S. C., And in Pennsylvania, in 1889, in an 3 N. E. Rep. 124. action of ejectment, the plaintiff claimed And in 1886, in Illinois, where there under a will which had been duly is an act of assembly providing that in proved over fifty years since, and which case of a second conviction for certain he offered in evidence. The will was offences, the punishment shall be imnot signed, and the evidence set out in prisonment for not less than fifteen the record of the probate before the years. An indictment of one of said register of wills, did not prove that the offences set forth a former conviction, failure to sign the will was duly ac- and the record of such former conviccounted for in accordance with the tion showed that the accused had there Pennsylvania Statute of Wills. The waived his right to a trial by jury and will was therefore objected to on those was tried, adjudged guilty and sentenced grounds, and it was held that notwith- by the court. This record was objected standing the fact that the probate by to on the ground that the accused in the register of wills is, in Pennsylvania, such a case had no power to waive a judicial decree, and by statute conclu- trial by jury. This objection was held not sive as to realty after the lapse of five to be well founded, because, conceding it years without appeal; yet the register to be so, and that the judgment entered of wills has no jurisdiction over the case was irregular and erroneous, paper that is not a will within the it was not void and it could not be atPennsylvania statutes; that this paper tacked collaterally. Kelley v. People was not a will within such statutes, and (111.), 3 West. Rep. 45; s. C., 4 N. E. could not be made so by the decree of Rep. 644. See the early case (1829) of probate, but that that decree, being en- Com. v. Curtis, Thach. Cr. C. (Mass.) tered without jurisdiction, was coram 202. non judice and void. Wall v. Wall, 23 In a recent case in Ohio (1886), simiWeekly Notes (Pa.) 237. To the same lar to Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. effect is Bowlby v. Thunder, 105 Pa. 274, cited supra, involving the title to St. 173, where the register had probated real estate based on a purchase at a sale

a

2. Various kinds of Jurisdictions, with Definitions Thereof.—There are various kinds of jurisdiction, which have been named and defined 1 as follows:

Appellate jurisdiction is that given by appeal from the judgment of another court.

Assistant jurisdiction is that afforded by a court of chancery in aid of a court of law; as, for example, by a bill of discovery, or for the perpetuation of testimony, and the like.

Jurisdiction of the cause is the power over the subject matter given by the laws of the sovereignty in which the tribunal exists.

Civil jurisdiction is that which exists when the subject matter is not of a criminal nature. Criminal jurisdiction is that which exists for punishment of crimes.

Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same parties or subject matter at the same time by two or more separate tribunals.

Exclusive jurisdiction is that which gives to one tribunal sole power to try the cause.

General jurisdiction is that which extends to a great variety of matters.

Limited jurisdiction (called also special and inferior) is that which extends only to certain specified causes.

Original jurisdiction is that bestowed upon a tribunal in the first instance.

made in pursuance of an order of the The question, therefore, cannot be probate court, it was held that even if said to be definitely decided. The great the said court had jurisdiction to order weight attached to the decisions of the the sale made, the decree of sale in supreme court of the United States this case was void, because no such makes it at least probable that if that jurisdiction of the court had been in- court continues to hold the views exvoked by the petition filed. The court, pressed in the late cases cited supra, however, say: "It is by no means in the courts of the various States will tended to question or impair the princi- sooner or later adopt them, but the deple that where jurisdiction has been ob- cisions thus far rendered scarcely autained over the subject matter of a thorize a stronger statement than that cause by a court competent to exercise there is a tendency in the later cases to it, its judgment, however erroneous, hold that jurisdiction includes not only cannot be questioned in a collateral the power to hear and determine, but proceeding. A judgment so rendered also the power to render the particular can only be set aside or questioned in a judgment entered in the particular direct proceeding instituted for that purpose

But a judgment See an article by Mr. Seymour D. rendered by a court of competent juris- Thompson entitled "The Modern Idea of diction in a case brought before it, how- Jurisdiction,” in The Central Law Jourever erroneously the jurisdiction may nal, vol. 19, p. 102; and an article by have been exercised, is one thing; and Mr. Rufus Waples entitled "Constitua judgment entered by a court of like tional Statutory Jurisdiction," in The jurisdiction in a case not before it, is an- American Law Register, vol. 26, p. other and a different thing. In the one 481. case its judgment may be erroneous; in 1. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (15th the other it is void.”. Spoors v. Coen ed.), vol. 2, p. 26, title Jurisdiction. (Ohio), 6 West. Rep. 809, 812; s. C., 9 Rapalje & Lawrence's Law DicN. E. Rep. 132. See also Robertson v. tionary, vol. 1, p. 702. See also OverState (Ind.), 7 West. Rep. 481; McCar- seers v. London & N. W. R. Co., L. rol v. Weeks, 5 Hayw. (Tenn.) 246, 253. R., 4 App. Cas. 30.

case.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »