1. An indictment for perjury in a deposition made before a special exam- iner of the pension bureau which charges the oath to have been wil- fully and corruptly taken before a named special examiner of the Pension Bureau of the United States, then and there a competent officer, and having lawful authority to administer said oath, is suffi- cient to inform the accused of the official character and authority of the officer before whom the oath was taken. Markham v. United States, 319.
2. In such an indictment it is not necessary to set forth all the details or facts involved in the issue as to the materiality of the statement, and as to the authority of the Commissioner of Pensions to institute the inquiry in which the deposition of the accused was taken. Ib. 3. The provision in Rev. Stat. § 1025 that "no indictment found and pre- sented by a grand jury in any district or circuit or other court of the United States shall be deemed insufficient, nor shall the trial, judg ment, or other proceeding thereon be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form only, which shall not tend to the prejudice of the defendant," is not to be interpreted as dispensing with the requirement in § 5396 that an indictment for perjury must set forth the substance of the offence charged.
4. An indictment for perjury that does not set forth the substance of the offence will not authorize judgment upon verdict of guilty. Dunbar v. United States, 156 U. S. 185, affirmed. Ib.
5. When two counts in an indictment for murder differ from each other only in stating the manner in which the murder was committed, the question whether the prosecution shall be compelled to elect under which it will proceed is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Pierce v. United States, 355.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 1, 10;
HABEAS CORPUs, 3, 4.
INSOLVENT DEBTOR.
See LOCAL LAW, 1 to 7.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7.
A. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 1. In the trial of a person accused of crime the exercise by the trial court of its discretion to direct or refuse to direct witnesses for the defend-
ant to be summoned at the expense of the United States is not sub- ject to review by this court. Goldsby v. United States, 70.
2. Where the record shows that the only matter tried and decided in the Circuit Court was a demurrer to a plea to the jurisdiction, and the petition upon which the writ of error was allowed asked only for the review of the judgment that the court had no jurisdiction of the action, the question of jurisdiction alone is sufficiently certified to this court, as required by the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5. Interior Construction & Improvement Co. v. Gibney, 217.
3. In an action brought in a state court against a railroad company for ejecting the plaintiff from a car, the defence was that a silver coin, offered by him in payment of his fare, was so abraded as to be no longer legal tender. The Supreme Court of the State, after referring to the Congressional legislation on the subject, held that, "so long as a genuine silver coin is worn only by natural abrasion, is not appre- ciably diminished in weight, and retains the appearance of a coin duly issued from the mint, it is a legal tender for its original value." The railroad company, although denying the plaintiff's claim, set up no right under any statute of the United States in reference to the effect of the reduction in weight of silver coin by natural abrasion. Judg- ment being given for plaintiff, the railroad company sued out a writ of error for its review. Held, that this court was without jurisdiction. Jersey City & Bergen Railroad Co. v. Morgan, 288.
4. On an appeal from a judgment of a territorial court, this court is lim- ited to determining whether the facts found are sufficient to sustain the judgment rendered, and to reviewing the rulings of the court on the admission or rejection of testimony, when exceptions thereto have been duly taken. Haws v. Victoria Copper Mining Co., 303.
5. In an action in the state courts of New York against the collector of the port of New York, the health officer of that port, and the owners of warehouses employed for public storage, to recover damages suf- fered by an importer of rags by reason of their having, been ordered to the warehouses by the collector and disinfected there, and detained until the charges for disinfection and storage were paid, a ruling by the highest court of the State that the direction of the collector to send the rags to the storehouses was pursuant to the requirement that they should be disinfected, and was in aid of the health officer in the execution of his official power by the observance of the regulations made by him that the collector gave no order for their disinfection that the health officer gave no such order- that the defendants assumed to disinfect them without authority, and hence that their charges were illegal — but that, as the collector had properly sent the goods to the warehouses for such action as the health authorities might see fit to take, the plaintiffs became liable for storage and light- erage, presents no Federal question for review by this court. Bartlett v. Lockwood, 357.
6. As this appeal was taken long after the act establishing the Circuit Courts of Appeals went into effect, and as there is an entire absence of a certificate of a question of jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In re Lehigh Mining Co., 156 U. S. 322, and Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 628, distinguished from this case. Van Wagenen v. Sewall, 369.
7. Even if an examination of the record would have disclosed a question of jurisdiction, which is very doubtful, this court cannot be required to search the record for it; as it was the object of the fifth section of the act of 1891 to have the question of jurisdiction plainly and dis- tinctly certified, or at least to have it appear so clearly in the decree of the court below that no other question was involved, that no further examination of the record would be necessary. Ib.
8. The decree, to review which this writ of error was sued out, was not a final decree, and this court cannot take jurisdiction. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 374.
9. The rule is well nigh universal that, if a case be remanded by an ap- pellate court to the court below for further judicial proceedings, in conformity with the opinion of the appellate court, the decree is not final.
10. This court has no power to review a decision of a state court that the averments of an answer in a pending case set forth no defence to the plaintiff's claim. Iowa Central Railway Co. v. Iowa, 389.
11. If a defendant, among other defences, in various forms, and upon several grounds, objects to the jurisdiction of the court, and final judgment is rendered for the plaintiff, and, upon a petition referring to all the proceedings in detail, and asking for a review of all the rulings of the court upon the question of jurisdiction raised in the papers on file, a writ of error is allowed generally, without formally certifying or otherwise specifying a definite question of jurisdiction, no question of jurisdiction is sufficiently certified to this court under the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5. Chappell v. United States, 499. 12. Upon a writ of error under the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5, in a
case in which the constitutionality of a law of the United States was drawn in question, this court has power to dispose of the whole case, including all questions, whether of jurisdiction or of merits.
13. If the decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals is final under the sixth section of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, a decree upon an inter- vention in the same suit must be regarded as equally so; and even if the decree on such proceedings may be in itself independent of the controversy between the original parties, yet if the proceedings are entertained in the Circuit Court because of its possession of the sub- ject of the ancillary or supplemental application, the disposition of the latter must partake of the finality of the main decree, and cannot be brought here on the theory that the Circuit Court exercised juris- diction independently of the ground of jurisdiction which was orig-
inally invoked as giving cognizance to that court as a court of the United States. Gregory v. Van Ee, 643.
14. By authority of the directors of a national bank in Chicago, which had acquired some of its own stock, the individual note of its cashier, secured by a pledge of that stock was, through a broker in Portage, sold to a bank there. The note not being paid at maturity the Port- age bank sued the Chicago bank in assumpsit, declaring specially on the note, which it alleged was made by the bank in the cashier's name, and also setting out the common counts. The bank set up that the purchase of its own stock was illegal and that money bor- rowed to pay a debt contracted for that purpose was equally forbid- den by Rev. Stat. § 5201. The trial court was requested by the Chicago bank to rule several propositions of law, and declined to do so. Judgment was then entered for the Portage bank. The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois held that the Portage bank was entitled to recover under the common counts, and that it was not necessary to consider whether the trial court had ruled correctly on the prop- ositions of law submitted to it. Held, that that court in rendering such judgment, denied no title, right, privilege, or immunity spe- cially set up or claimed under the laws of the United States, and that the writ of error must be dismissed. Chemical Bank v. City Bank of Portage, 646.
See CASES AFFIRMED, 8; NEW TRIAL.
B. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.
1. Circuit Courts of Appeals have no jurisdiction over the judgments of territorial courts in capital cases, and in cases of infamous crimes. Folsom v. United States, 121.
2. This construction of the statute is imperative from its language, and is not affected by the fact that convictions for minor offences are review- able on a second appeal, while convictions for capital and infamous crimes are not so reviewable. Ib.
3. Under the act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, a defendant, who enters a general appearance, in an action between citizens of different States, thereby waives the right afterwards to object that he or another defendant is not an inhabitant of the district in which the action is brought. Interior Construction & Improvement Co. v. Gibney, 217.
C. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 1. It is established doctrine, to which the court adheres, that the constitu- tional privilege of a grantee or purchaser of property, being a citizen of one of the States, to invoke the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court of the United States for the protection of his rights as against a citizen
of another State-the value of the matter in dispute being sufficient for the purpose-cannot be affected or impaired merely because of the motive that induced his grantor to convey, or his vendee to sell and deliver, the property, provided such conveyance or such sale and delivery was a real transaction by which the title passed without the grantor or vendor reserving or having any right or power to compel or require a reconveyance or return to him of the property in question. Lehigh Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Kelly, 327.
2. Citizens of Virginia were in possession of lands in that State, claiming title, to which also a corporation organized under the laws of Virginia had for some years laid claim. In order to transfer the corporation's title and claim to a citizen of another State, thus giving a Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction over an action to recover the lands, the stockholders of the Virginia corporation organized them- selves into a corporation under the laws of Pennsylvania, and the Virginia corporation then conveyed the lands to the Pennsylvania corporation, and the latter corporation brought this action against the citizens of Virginia to recover possession of the lands. No consider- ation passed for the transfer. Both corporations still exist. Held, that these facts took this case out of the operation of the established doctrine above stated and made of the transaction a mere device to give jurisdiction to the Circuit Court, and that it was a fraud upon that court, as well as a wrong to the defendants. Ib.
3. Circuit Courts of the United States have jurisdiction of actions in which the United States are plaintiffs, without regard to the value of the matter in dispute. United States v. Sayward, 493.
See CORPORATION, 1;
HABEAS CORpus, 1;
JURISDICTION, A, 13.
D. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
1. The act of March 3, 1891, c. 538, 26 Stat. 851, "to provide for the adju- dication and payment of claims arising from Indian depredations," confers, by § 1, clause 1, no jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to adjudicate upon such a claim, made by a person who was not a citizen of the United States at the time when the injury was suffered, although he subsequently became so: nor, by § 1, clause 2, unless the claim was one which, on March 3, 1885, had been examined and allowed by the Department of the Interior or was then pending there for examina- tion. Johnson v. United States, 546.
2. Any claim made against an Executive Department, "involving disputed facts or controverted questions of law, where the amount in contro- versy exceeds three thousand dollars, or where the decision will affect a class of cases, or furnish a precedent for the future action of any Executive Department in the adjustment of a class of cases, without
« ZurückWeiter » |