after the property is there sold, seize it and apply its proceeds to the satisfaction of the admiralty lien, thus rendering the proceedings in the state court wholly nugatory.51 The rule of comity prevents the admiralty court from taking the property in possession of the state court, or from seizing it until that court by its sale has relinquished its custody.52

30. Stare decisis and judicial comity.-The maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere (to stand by precedents and not disturb what is settled) is the one fundamental rule of the unwritten or common law, the rule of conduct to be inferred from judicial decisions, and applied to cases as they arise.53 The importance of this doctrine is well expressed in Palmer's Admrs. v. Mead:

54

"If law, well established, may be annulled by an opinion, a foundation is laid for the most restless instability. The decisions of one court may be overruled by another court, and those of the latter will have only a transient efficacy until some future court, dissatisfied with them, shall substitute new principles in their place. No system of inflexible adherence to established law can be as pernicious as such ceaseless and interminable fluctuations."

It is, however, an almost universal conviction with judges that legal principles must be founded on sound reason. Precedents are to be regarded as the great storehouse of experience, not always to be followed,

51 Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 256, 14 Sup. Ct. 1019, 38 L. Ed. 981. 52 Same, distinguishing Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583 (U. S.), 15 L. Ed.

1028.

53 Anderson's Law Dictionary (1st ed.), p. 319.

54 7 Conn. 149.

but to be looked upon as beacon lights in the progress of judicial investigation.55 But if an erroneous decision has become a rule of property it should be followed.56

The

Judicial comity. The meaning of this term is general reciprocity. Courts will generally enforce the law of another state when this will not violate their own laws or injure their citizens. This rule permits the citizens of one government to sue in the courts of another, when not prevented by statute.57 federal courts will generally follow the state courts in construing their own written law, unless there has been a change of construction, and rights have grown up under the earlier decision,58 or unless the local rule conflicts with the Constitution or a treaty of the United States.59 Where a county issued municipal bonds to aid a railroad, and the state court at first held the aid statute valid but later invalid, bonds sold to bona fide holders before the change in construction were held valid by the United States Supreme Court.60 Statutes providing that injunctions staying proceedings in other courts shall not be issued are merely expressions of the rule of judicial comity.61

Courts of one state or country do not enforce the penal laws of another."

62

55 Leavitt v. Morrow, 6 Ohio St. 71, 67 Am. Dec. 334.

56 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Adams, 81 Miss. 90, 32 So. 937.

7 Franzen v. Zimmer, 90 Hun 103 (N. Y.), 35 N. Y. Supp. 612.

58 Fairfield v. County of Gallatin, 100 U. S. 47.

59 Wright v. Nagle, 101 U. S. 791.

60 Green Co. v. Conness, 109 U. S. 104, 3 Sup. Ct. 69, 27 L. Ed. 872.

61 Sharon v. Terry, 36 Fed. 337, 1 L. R. A. 572, 131 U. S. 40, 9 Sup. Ct. 705, 33 L. Ed. 94.

62 § 20.

CHAPTER II.

THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

Federal Jurisprudence, and Its Relation to the Common Law and State Jurisprudence.

64

31. The federal judicial power. The judicial power vested in the United States courts is the authority to apply the federal laws to cases and controversies brought before them.63 It is given by the Constitution, which provides that the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such other inferior courts as Congress may establish, and that such power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, federal laws and treaties, all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, controversies to which the United States shall be a party, controversies between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state or a citizen thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. By the eleventh amendment, adopted in 1798, it was provided that the judicial power should not be construed to extend to any suit in law or

63 Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 866 (U. S.), 6 L. Ed. 204.

64 Art. III, §§ 1, 2.

equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. The power is thus expressly limited to cases and controversies, and to be exercised by courts, not by Congress, the President or any other officer or body of men. Important judicial powers are, however, exercised by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of the General Land Office, Commissioner of Labor, and other officers who are not courts, and who are said to exercise only quasi-judicial power.

32. In what courts the judicial power must be vested.—Congress has power to create two classes of courts, the one to exercise the constitutional judicial power, such as district courts, the circuit court of appeals, court of claims, commerce court and customs court, and the other to exercise such judicial powers as Congress may provide, such as territorial courts, District of Columbia courts, military and naval courts, and consular courts. The latter class are legislative courts, created under the sovereignty existing in the government, or in that clause of the Constitution enabling Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.65 No power exists in Congress to confer any part of the constitutional judicial power upon the state courts.66 Legislative courts may be vested with such jurisdiction as Congress

65 American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 546 (U. S.), 7 L. Ed. 242; Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434 (U. S.), 20 L. Ed. 659.

66 Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 (U. S.), 4 L. Ed. 97.

may decide, and they may also lawfully exercise such of the federal judicial power, in addition to the powers generally given to the state courts, as the enabling act may confer. Thus the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia has the same federal jurisdiction as the district court of the United States, including admiralty and patents for inventions.67 This court is also, for some purposes, deemed to be a district court of the United States, although it has a large civil and criminal jurisdiction, which a district court could not exercise.68 Territorial courts, on the contrary, although created under the same constitutional authority as the Supreme Court of the District, are not courts of the United States, although generally vested with all the powers of the federal district courts,70 and of state courts."1

69

33. General rules as to jurisdiction and powers. -Since the federal courts have plenary power within the limits of the jurisdiction given them, they are superior and not inferior courts, and the presumption of regularity fully applies to their proceedings and judgments.72 The district court is given jurisdiction, in a certain class of cases, only when the matter in dispute exceeds three thousand dollars, besides interest and costs, and in another class only when the controversy is between citizens of different

67 Smith v. Burnett, 173 U. S. 430, 19 Sup. Ct. 442, 43 L. Ed. 756; Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 24 L. Ed. 139.

68 Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 1, 25 Sup. Ct. 569, 49 L. Ed. 919. 69 Cases in note 65. Good v. Martin, 95 U. S. 90, 24 L. Ed. 341.

70 McAllister v. United States, 141 U. S. 174, 11 Sup. Ct. 949, 35 L. Ed. 693.

71 Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556, 3 Sup. Ct. 396, 27 L. Ed. 1030. 72 § 5.