2

99. Suits against foreign consuls and vice-consuls.-The Supreme Court is given original but not exclusive jurisdiction of suits in which a foreign consul or vice-consul is a party, either plaintiff or defendant,1 and the district court has jurisdiction, exclusive of the state courts, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls. Such suits if against an alien consul or vice-consul, as is generally the case, may be brought in the district where the defendant resides, there being no federal statute on the subject.3 If such foreign consul or vice-consul is a citizen of the United States then the suit is properly brought in the district of his residence. The district court also has jurisdiction of a suit between a citizen of the United States and an alien who is a consul of a foreign government.5 State courts have jurisdiction of proceedings against a person who has been removed from the office of consul before the proceedings were brought."

100. Bankruptcy proceedings.-The district court has exclusive jurisdiction of bankruptcy proceedings against the persons mentioned in the bankrupt act, and such act supersedes all state laws in regard to assignments for the benefit of creditors and insolvency proceedings generally, provided that a bankruptcy proceeding is instituted in the district court. If, however, no such proceeding is brought, the state

1 Judicial Code, § 233.

2 Judicial Code, § 256, Subdivision 8.

3 Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 18 Sup. Ct. 526, 42 L. Ed. 964. 4 Judicial Code, § 51.

5 Bors v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252, 4 Sup. Ct. 407, 28 L. Ed. 419.

6 Iasigi v. Van De Carr, 166 U. S. 391, 17 Sup. Ct. 595, 41 L. Ed. 1045.

8

courts have jurisdiction under their system." The bankrupt law does not extend to a municipal, railroad, banking or insurance corporation, so state insolvent laws may be made to apply to them. Farmers and wage-earners may be voluntary, but not involuntary, bankrupts. A partnership, however, may be adjudged a bankrupt." The matter of suit by trustees in bankruptcy in the federal district court is somewhat complicated. If property belonging to a bankrupt estate is in the possession of a third person by some transfer made prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, the trustee may bring suit for such property. If the bankrupt could have brought such a suit in the federal court then the trustee may do so, but if the bankrupt could have sued only in the state court then the trustee must bring suit there.10 If, however, the defendant does not object, certain suits for such property may be brought in the federal court.11 In order that the trustee may sue in the district court to set aside a preference or a fraudulent transfer, made within four months before the bankruptcy, the matter in dispute must exceed $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, the bankrupt and the defendant must be citizens of different states, and suit must be brought in the district of the residence of either the trustee or the defendant, unless the proper venue is waived; or a federal question must be presented and a like

7 Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 (U. S.), 4 L. Ed. 529.

8 Bankruptcy Act, § 4b., as amended 1910.

9 Bankruptcy Act, § 5.

10 Bankruptcy Act, § 23.

11 Same.

amount involved, and a suit should in that case be brought where the defendant resides, unless defendant waives the proper venue, or is an alien or an alien corporation.12 Cases in the district court involving liens or claims to property in the district where suit is brought against non-resident defendants are properly brought in that district, and the defendant may be served by publication or notice inserted in a newspaper in the district.13 Suits for debt, specific performance, replevin, trover, and all suits other than those to avoid transfers, may be in the district court, if the defendant does not object.14 If consent cannot be obtained then they must be in the state courts, or in the district court in case of diverse citizenship and sufficient sum in controversy. If a person or corporation holds property of the bankrupt for him as his agent, or by transfer made after the bankruptcy petition was filed, no such suit need be brought for such property, but the holder of the property may be cited into the bankruptcy court proper before the referee, and compelled to turn over the property to the trustee or a receiver appointed by the bankruptcy court. Bankruptcy proceedings proper are in the district court before either the judge or referee upon what is called the bankruptcy side of the court. Other suits, independent of the bankruptcy proceeding but in aid thereof, are upon what is called the circuit court side of the district court.

12 Bankruptcy Act § 23; Judicial Code, §§ 24, 51.

13 Bankruptcy Act, § 53. 14 Bankruptcy Act, § 23b.

101. Jurisdiction concurrent with the court of claims. The jurisdiction of the court of claims has been already explained.15 All claims against the government not exceeding $10,000, founded on the Constitution or any law of Congress, or upon any regulation of an executive department, or upon any contract, express or implied, with the government, or for damages, liquidated or unliquidated, in cases other than tort, in respect to which a claimant would be entitled to redress against the United States, either in a court of law, equity or admiralty, if the United States were suable, and all set-offs, counterclaims, claims for damages, or other demands on the part of the government against the claimant, may be sued in the district court. This jurisdiction does not extend to war claims, fees, salaries or compensation of United States officers, or assignees or legal representatives thereof. Such claims may be brought in any district court, and are defended by the local district attorney.16 Such suits are triable by the court without a jury.

102. Unlawful enclosure of public lands.-The district courts are given exclusive jurisdiction, by injunction, to restrain violations of the United States laws to prevent unlawful enclosure of public lands. Suit must be brought in the district court where the land lies, and the original process, which is a writ of subpoena, may be served on any agent or employee having charge or control of the enclosure.17

15 § 73.

16 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivision 20. 17 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivision 21.

103. Habeas corpus and appeal in immigration and Chinese exclusion cases.-The district courts have a very limited jurisdiction in cases relating to aliens, except when proceedings are brought before a United States commissioner to deport Chinese. The matter of admitting foreigners to this country, and permitting them to remain after admission, is wholly an executive or political question, of which the executive departments have complete charge. If an alien is refused admission to this country, or gains admission unlawfully, his exclusion is entrusted entirely to the Department of Commerce and Labor. If the immigration officer in refusing to admit a person, or the Department of Commerce and Labor in excluding him, once admitted, do not give him a substantial hearing then the courts may interfere by writ of habeas corpus, as was done in the case of General Castro, who was refused admission at Ellis Island, but was discharged by the district court for the southern district of New York, on the ground that there was no law justifying his rejection.18 The decision of the executive officers in such cases has been made final by Congress, subject only to the right of habeas corpus above explained.1o

Chinese exclusion. Chinese found to be unlawfully in this country may be excluded, either by the executive department or the judicial, at the election of the officers of the Department of Commerce and Labor. If excluded by the executive department, the pro

18 United States ex rel. Castro v. Williams, 203 Fed. 155.

19 Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 12 Sup. Ct. 336, 35 L. Ed. 1146; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016, 37 L. Ed. 905.