INTERNATIONAL LAW.
See LAW OF NATIONS;
LOCAL LAW, 1;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A, 6, 7, 8, 9.
1. A judgment entered upon motion of defendant's attorney of record that
"it appearing that the subject-matter in this suit has been adjusted
and settled by the parties, it is therefore ordered that this cause be,
and the same is, hereby dismissed," is a judgment on the merits, final
in form and nature, and is a bar to a subsequent suit against the de-
fendant for the same cause of action. This rule also prevails in
Nevada by statute. Gen. Stat. Nevada, 1885, § 3173. United States
v. Parker, 89.
2. The difference between a retraxit and a non-suit pointed out. Ib.
3. A judgment recovered in one court may be pleaded as a defence to a
suit on the same cause of action pending in another, when by law the
cause of action is merged in the judgment. Schuler v. Israel, 506.
4. The question of what is a final decree, from which an appeal can be
taken, considered. Porter v. Pittsburg Bessemer Steel Co., 649.
5. The denial of compulsory process to enable a person charged with crime
to obtain witnesses at the trial in the court below, does not invalidate
the judgment. Ex parte Harding, 782.
See CORPORATION, 4;
JURISDICTION A, 3;
PROBABLE CAUSE, 2.
A. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
1. In an action in which a jury has been waived in writing, and the judg-
ment of the Circuit Court is for more than $5000, the question whether
the facts set forth in a special finding of the court are sufficient in law
to support the judgment may be reviewed on writ of error, without
any bill of exceptions or Certificate of Division of Opinion. Allen v.
St. Louis Bank, 20.
2. An averment in a motion for a new trial (contained in a record, brought
up in error from a state court) that a statute of the state upon which
the suit was based is "unconstitutional and void," may apply to the
constitution of the state, and, taken by itself, raises no question for
decision below, which this court can review in error. Kansas Endow-
ment Association v. Kansas, 103.
3. The judgments and decrees of the Circuit Courts of the United States,
sitting in a particular state, are to be accorded in the courts of that
state, whether as the foundation of an action, or of a defence, either
by plea or in proof, such effect, and such effect only, as would be ac-
corded in similar circumstances to the judgments and decrees of a
state tribunal of equal authority; and whether such due effect has
been given by a state court to a judgment or decree of a court of the
United States is a Federal question within the jurisdiction of this
court, on a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State. Crescent
City Co. v. Butchers' Union Co., 141.
4. Where a District Court in the Territory of Utah refuses to issue a writ
of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom, an appeal
lies to this court from its order and judgment of refusal. In re Snow,
274.
5. An action at law in a state court of California by A against B, to re-
cover the value of a crop raised on land occupied by B who claims as
preemptor, adversely to A, claiming under the state, by B's labor and
at B's expense, does not involve the title to the land, and the issue
presents no Federal question. Martin v. Thompson, 376.
6. Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, affirmed on the point that this court
cannot discharge on habeas corpus a person imprisoned under the
sentence of a Circuit or District Court, in a criminal case, unless the
sentence exceeds the jurisdiction of that court, or there is no authority
to hold the prisoner under sentence. Ex parte Harding, 782.
B. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
1. A Circuit Court of the United States has jurisdiction to issue a writ of
habeas corpus to determine whether one of the crew of a foreign ves-
sel in a port of the United States, who is in the custody of the state
authorities, charged with the commission of a crime, within the port,
against the laws of the state, is exempt from local jurisdiction under
the provisions of a treaty between the United States and the foreign
nation to which the vessel belongs. Wildenhus's Case, 1.
2. The parties in this case on both sides being all citizens of Louisiana, it
is held that the facts as stated in the opinion of the court show no real
and substantial dispute or controversy arising under the Constitution
or laws of the United States, so as to authorize the removal of the
case from the state court of Louisiana, to the Circuit Court of the
United States. Gibbs v. Crandall, 105.
3. An averment that the complainant in a bill of equity "resides" in a
state is not an averment that he is a citizen of the state, so as to give
a Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction over the subject-
matter by reason of citizenship of the parties. Everhart v. Huntsville
College, 223.
4. When the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court depends upon the citizenship of
the parties, and that court takes jurisdiction and renders judgment,
and the record in this court in error or on appeal fails to show the
requisite citizenship, the judgment will be reversed and the case re-
manded by this court on its own motion, and the party in default
adjudged to pay costs here. Ib.
5. An order drawn upon a county treasurer by county officials in favor of
A or order unindorsed, and a like order in favor of A, both assigned
by A to B for a valuable consideration, constitute no cause of action
in B's favor on which B can maintain an action in a Circuit Court of
the United States on the ground of citizenship, if A could not main-
tain the action there on the same ground; and if, in such action in
B's favor A's necessary qualification of citizenship does not affirma-
tively appear in the record in this court, the writ of error will be dis-
missed whether the question of jurisdiction be made or not, and plain-
tiff in error adjudged to pay costs in this court. King Bridge Co. v.
Otoe County, 225.
6. This suit is brought to compel state officers to do what a statute of the
state requires them to do, and is not a suit against the state, but
against the officers. Rolston v. Missouri Fund Commissioners, 390.
7. A Circuit Court of the United States cannot acquire jurisdiction, by re-
moval from a state court, under § 2 of the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137
(18 Stat. 470) of an original proceeding to obtain a mandamus against
the treasurer or the board of supervisors of a city, to compel them to
take action, in accordance with a statute of the state, to pay the inter-
est or principal of bonds issued by the city. Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 450.
8. Section 716 of the Revised Statutes, giving power to a Circuit Court to
issue all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which may be
necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction and agreeable to the
usages and principles of law, construed in connection with §§ 1 and 2
of the act of 1875, operates to prevent the issuing by the Circuit Court
of a writ of mandamus, except in aid of a jurisdiction previously ac-
quired by that court. Ib.
9. In an action to recover less than $5000, in which the defendant asks for
judgment upon a counterclaim for more than that sum, and the Cir-
cuit Court renders a general judgment for the plaintiff, a writ of error
sued out by the defendant is within the jurisdiction of this court,
under the act of February 15, 1875, c. 77, § 3. Dushane v. Benedict,
630.
C. OF TERRITORIAL COUurts.
A territorial court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to try a person in-
dicted for a criminal offence by the fact that an alien sat on the grand
jury that found the indictment, under a provision of a territorial statute
permitting it. Ex parte Harding, 782.
D. OF STATE COURTS.
See TREATY.
1. The judgment of the court as to the competency of the juror upon his
declaration under oath or otherwise, as above, is conclusive. Hapt v.
Utah, 430.
2. When a challenge by a defendant in a criminal action to a juror, for
bias, actual or implied, is disallowed, and the juror is thereupon per-
emptorily challenged by the defendant, and excused, and an impartial
and competent juror is obtained in his place, no injury is done to the
defendant, if until the jury is completed he has other peremptory chal-
lenges which he can use. Ib.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A, 2;
EVIDENCE, 3.
LACHES.
See EQUITY, 4, 5;
LOCAL LAW, 23 (4).
1. The Civil Code of Louisiana, following the civil law of Rome, Spain,
and France, and differing from the common law, regards a lease for
years as a mere transfer of the thing leased; and holds the landlord
bound, without any express covenant, to keep it in repair and other-
wise fit for the use for which it is leased, even when the want of repair
or the unfitness is caused by an inevitable accident; and if he does not
do so, authorizes the tenant to have the lease annulled or the rent
abated. Viterbo v. Friedlander, 707.
2. The breaking of a crevasse in the levees by the waters of the Mississippi
River is a fortuitous or unforeseen event, within the meaning of the
Civil Code of Louisiana; and if in consequence thereof a sugar planta-
tion, leased for five years, with the buildings, mules, and implements
necessary for the cultivation of sugar-cane, and with the growing crop
of cane (which the lessee agrees to cut and plant as seed cane, and, by
way of reimbursing the lessor for it, to leave a certain amount of
growing cane on the plantation at the end of the lease), is overflowed
for three months, all the cane destroyed, the canals and ditches neces-
sary for drainage filled up, the bridges swept away, and a deposit from
three to six inches deep left over the whole ground, making it neces-
sary, in order to cultivate it as a sugar plantation the following year,
to spend large sums of money to dig out canals and ditches, repair
bridges, and buy seed cane, the plantation is partially destroyed, or
ceases to be fit for the use for which it was leased, within the meaning
of articles 2697 (2667) and 2699 (2669) of that code, and the lessee is
entitled to have the lease annulled; notwithstanding the provision of
article 2743 (2719) that the tenant of a predial estate cannot claim an
abatement of rent for a destruction of a whole or part of his crop by in-
evitable accidents, unless they are of such a nature that they could not
have been foreseen by either party when the lease was made. Ib.
The counterfeiting of foreign securities, whether national or corporate,
which have been put out under sanction of public authority at home
especially the counterfeiting of bank notes and bank bills-is an
offence against the Law of Nations. United States v. Arjona, 479.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A, 3, 4.
LETTERS TESTAMENTARY.
See LIMITATION, STATUTES OF, 2, 3.
1. When relief is asked in equity in courts of the United States on the
ground of fraud, time will not run in favor of defendant until dis-
covery of the fraud, or until, with reasonable diligence, it might have
been discovered; and this rule is not affected in the state of New York
by the provisions of § 382 of the code of that state as amended in 1877
in so far as they may be construed to modify it. Kirby v. Lake Shore
& Southern Michigan Railroad, 130.
2. A statute of a state which provides that "the time which shall have
elapsed between the death of any person and the granting of let-
ters testamentary or of administration on his estate, not exceeding
six months, and the period of six months after the granting of such
letters shall not be deemed any part of the time limited by any law
for the commencement of actions by executors or administrators," does
not give the party claiming the benefit of its provisions both periods
of six months therein mentioned, but only such time, not exceeding
six months, as elapsed after the death of the testator or intestate,
before the granting of letters, and the additional time of six months
after the granting of letters. Ib.
3. In a state where ancillary letters are authorized to be issued on a will
proved in another state, on depositing in the office of the probating
court a certified copy of the will and its probate, the executor. cannot
prevent the state statute of limitations from running against him in a
Circuit Court of the United States sitting within the state, by unrea
sonable delay in taking out ancillary letters. Ib.
|