Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

payable to the bearer, nor does it apply to corporation papers. Such suits must involve more than $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs.19

49

85. Civil suits between alien states or citizens and state citizens.-A foreign state may sue a citizen of the state in the district court, and such a citizen may also sue a foreign state therein, in cases where the state is suable and submits to the jurisdiction. A state citizen may also bring suit against an alien, and, vice versa, an alien may bring suit against a citizen.50 All such suits must involve more than $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs. If a suit is brought against a state citizen it must be either in the district of the residence of the plaintiff or defendant, unless the objection be waived.51 If a suit is brought against an alien it may be brought in any district where he can be found and served with process, or in which he voluntarily appears.52

The

86. Crimes and offenses under federal laws. district court is given exclusive jurisdiction of all crimes and offenses created by any federal statute. There are no common law crimes against the United States.53

87. Admiralty and non-admiralty, seizures and prize. The district court has always had exclusive jurisdiction of suits in admiralty brought for the purpose of seizing and condemning a vessel for the

49 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivision 1.

50 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivision 1.

51 Judicial Code, § 51.

52 Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 18 Sup. Ct. 526, 42 L. Ed. 964.

53 United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 3 L. Ed. 259.

purpose of paying liens growing out of seamen's wages, freight contracts, insurance contracts, collisions, and other contracts and wrongs of a maritime character. Congress has also passed several acts relating to the limitation of liability of ship owners, under which the owner or charterer of a vessel may at his option surrender the vessel to the district court to be condemned and sold for the purpose of paying all claims against it, and thus escape any personal liability for such claims. The state courts, however, as well as the district court in cases of diverse citizenship, have jurisdiction of common law actions relating to the conduct of vessels, such as claims for negligence of the ship officers, for the collection of liens for towage, damages by fire upon a vessel, injuries by the vessel to a wharf or bridge or other structure on shore, and suits to enforce maritime contracts generally.54 Actions brought against a vessel for the purpose of procuring its condemnation and sale to pay claims against it are called suits in rem, because the vessel is regarded as the offending thing liable for such claims, while suits against the owners or officers for contracts or torts growing out of the conduct of the vessel are known as suits in personam.

Non-admiralty seizures. The district courts are given jurisdiction of a large class of cases of seizures of property on land or on waters which are not navigable. Many statutes relating to the revenue, tariff and police laws provide that property used unlawfully shall be forfeited to the United States, 54 1 Fed. Rep. Digest, pp. 75-78.

[blocks in formation]

or to the person who informs the government officers of the offense. There are also numerous police regulations in relation to food, drugs, prohibited articles, animals, plants and seeds which contain like provisions. In such cases the condemnation of the property is secured through a seizure and suit commenced under the admiralty practice in a district court; and of these cases that court has exclusive jurisdiction.55 Prize cases. The district court has also exclusive jurisdiction of vessels captured as prize of war.

Venue of actions. Admiralty cases in rem for the seizure and condemnation of a vessel on navigable water may be brought in any district where the vessel may be seized, or, if the vessel is lost, in any district where proceedings are first begun. Actions in personam may be brought wherever the defendant may be found and served with process, or where he voluntarily appears. Suits under the revenue, tariff and police statutes where the property is seized must be brought wherever the property can be found. Suits for condemnation of property as prize should be begun in the district into which the vessel is brought, or, if the vessel be lost, in any district where the proceedings can be first commenced.57 The objection that suit is not brought in the proper district, however, is always a matter of waiver, not going to the jurisdiction of the court.58

88. Slave trade.-Exclusive jurisdiction over suits arising under any law relating to the slave

55 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivision 3.

56 Same.

57 Judicial Code, §§ 45-47.

58 In re Moore, 209 U. S. 490, 28 Sup. Ct. 585, 52 L. Ed. 904.

trade is vested in the district court.59 The slave trade having been practically abolished; such suits are now almost unknown in this country. Early cases relating to this trade are The Merino 60 and The Slavers.61

89. Suits under revenue, customs, tonnage, and postal laws.-The term revenue law when used in connection with the jurisdiction of a federal court means a law imposing duties on imports or tonnage of vessels, or a law providing in terms for revenue. Thus, a statute requiring a district court clerk to account to the government for his receipts over a certain sum is not a revenue law.62 All statutes relating to the receipts of the post-office or of the post-office department are revenue laws within this rule.63 The district court is given jurisdiction of all such suits.64 Seizures made in suits in the district court for forfeitures for a violation of the internal revenue or customs laws are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the district court,65 but the state courts have concurrent jurisdiction in cases arising under the postal laws.66 90. Suits under patent, copyright and trademark laws. The district courts have jurisdiction exclusive of the state courts of all suits in law or in equity arising under the patent and copyright laws.67 Suits under the trade-mark laws may also be brought

59 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivision 4.
60 9 Wheat. 391 (U. S.), 6 L. Ed. 118.
61 2 Wall. 383 (U. S.), 17 L. Ed. 911.

62 United States v. Hill, 123 U. S. 681, 8 Sup. Ct. 308, 31 L. Ed. 275. 63 See case in note 62; United States v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109, 15 Sup. Ct. 39, 39 L. Ed. 87.

64 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivisions 5 and 6.

65 Coffey v. United States, 116 U. S. 247, 6 Sup. Ct. 432, 29 L. Ed. 681. 66 Lewis Pub. Co. v. Wyman, 152 Fed. 200.

67 Judicial Code, § 256.

in the state courts.68 The district court has no jurisdiction of any patent case other than actions for infringement at law or in equity, and actions in equity for an injunction against the further use of a patent by the defendant, and for an accounting of profits made by such use. Suits relating to contracts and licenses under patents are not cognizable in the district court, unless they involve more than $3,000, and are between citizens of different states or a citizen and an alien.69 The United States may also sue to cancel a patent for an invention where fraud has been practiced in procuring it, but there is a strong presumption that the grant is valid.70

Venue in patent, copyright and trade-mark cases. The statute of 189771 provides that the district court shall have jurisdiction in law or in equity in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in any district in which the defendant, whether a person, partnership or corporation, shall have committed acts of infringement, and have a regular and established place of business. The district or districts referred to in this statute constitute the proper places for the bringing of suits, but the objection may be waived, as in other cases of venue.72 In copyright and trade-mark cases the defendant should be sued in the district of his residence,73 but if

68 Judicial Code, § 256.

69 White v. Rankin, 144 U. S. 628, 12 Sup. Ct. 768, 36 L. Ed. 569.

70 United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 128 U. S. 315, 9 Sup. Ct. 90,

32 L. Ed. 450; 167 U. S. 224, 17 Sup. Ct. 809, 42 L. Ed. 144.

71 29 Stats. at Large, p. 695.

72 General Electric Co. v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co., 123 Fed. 101, 130 Fed. 772, 66 C. C. A. 82.

73 Judicial Code, § 51.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »