where jurisdiction depends on the party, it is the party named on the record.--1 Peters' S. C. Rep., 121. Osborne v. Bank of the United States 9 Wheaton, 738. Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall., 411.

In a case where the chief magistrate of a state is sued, not by his name, but his style of office, and the claim made upon him is entirely in his official character, the state itself may be considered a party on the record.-Governor of Georgia v. Juan Madrazo, 1 Peters' S. C. Rep., 124.

The courts of the United States have jurisdiction of a case between citizens of the same state, if the plaintiffs are only nominal plaintiffs for the use of an alien.-5 Cranch, 303. 2 Cond. Rep., 264.

Where the plaintiffs were aliens and their testators citizens of Georgia, and the suit was against citizens of Georgia, they were entitled to sue in the circuit court.-Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch, 306.

An action was brought by foreign attachment, in the court of common pleas of Warren county, Pennsylvania, in the name of a citizen of Penn sylvania, for the use of the Lumberman's Bank of Warren, Pa., against a citizen of New York. The suit was on a note given by the defendant to the plaintiff, to be paid "in the office notes of the Lumberman's bank at Warren." Some of the stockholders of the Lumberman's bank at Warren were citizens of the state of New York. The defendant appeared to the action by counsel, and having given bond with surety to the court of common pleas, removed the cause to the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania. A motion was made in the circuit court, to remand the cause to the court of common pleas of Warren county, the circuit court not having jurisdiction of the cause, on the ground that the real party in the suit was the Lumberman's Bank, and that the Bank was a corporation aggregate, and some of the corporators were citizens of New York. It was held that the circuit court had jurisdiction of the cause.-Irvine for the use of the Lumberman's Bank of Warren v. Lowrey, 14 Peters' S. C. Rep., 292.

9. What is the rule where there is a change of parties, on the record, after suit brought ?

It has been decided that, if an alien should sue a citizen, and should omit to state the character of the parties in the bill, though the court could not exercise jurisdiction while the defect in the bill remained, yet it might at any time before the hearing, and the court would not hesitate to decree in the cause.-Connolly v. Taylor, 2 Peters' K. Rep., 565. Russell v. Clark's Ex., 7 Cranch, 69. McMicken v. Webb et al., 11 Peters' S. C. Rep., 25.

A bill was filed by W., a citizen of Connecticut, against M., and others, citizens of Rhode Island, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Rhode Island. An answer was put in to the bill, and the court was referred to a master for an account.

Pending these proceedings, the complainant died, and administration of his effects was granted to C., a citizen of Rhode Island, who filed a bill of revivor in the circuit court. Held, that the bill of revivor was in no just sense an original suit. The parties to the original suit were citizens of

different states, and the jurisdiction of the court completely attached to the controversy. Having so attached, it could not be divested by any subsequent proceedings.-Clark v. Matthewson, 12 Peters' S. C. Rep., 164.

10. What is the rule as to the right of assignees to sue in the circuit court?

The Act of September 24, 1789, imposes the restriction, that no circuit or district court shall have cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory notes, or other chose in action, in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents, if no assignment had been made, except in cases of foreign bills of exchange.

The act is not confined to assignable paper, though that was the principal object of the provision. Equitable as well as legal assignments are included.

Assignees by operation of law, as where the estate of an insolvent is vested in them by law, are embraced by the provision, as much as assignees by deed.-Seré & Laralde v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332. But a note made payable to W. P. or bearer, is not within this clause. Bean v. Smith, 2 Mason, 268. Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Peters' S. C. Rep., 318. Bank of Kentucky v. Ashley & Ella, 2 Ib., 327.

An administrator de bonis non, or residuary legatee, is not considered as an assignee within the act.-Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch, 306.

11. What is the rule in the case of an action by an endorsee against the endorser?

That the endorsee of a promissory note, who is a citizen of one state, may sue the endorser, who is a citizen of another state, in the circuit court, whether the endorser could sue the maker in that court or not.--Turner v. The Bank of North America, 4 Dall., 8. Montelet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 46.

12. What is the rule as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court in cases of trespass quare clausum fregit?

The rule is, that no action will lie in the circuit court for trespass quare clausum fregit if the lands in question are not within the district in which the court is sitting, though the defendant be a citizen of the state where the suit is brought, and the plaintiff a citizen of another stateLivingston v. Jefferson, 4 Hall's Law Journal, 78. 1 Brock. Rep., 203.

13. How has the 11th section of the judicial act, which provides" that no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another, in any civil action before a circuit or district court, and no civil suit shall be brought, before either of said courts, against an inhabitant of the United States, by any original process, in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ," been construed?

It has been held not to be in restriction of the jurisdiction of the court, but a grant of a personal privilege, that of not being served with process out of the district in which the defendant resides, or is found; and this is the case as well with regard to arrests as to other process at law or equity. Being such personal privilege, it may be waived. Thus, if the defendant, who is served in the state where he resides with equity process from the circuit court of another state, appear to such process and answer without objecting to it, he hereby waives his privilege, and the court has jurisdiction.-Logan v. Patrick, 5 Cranch, 288. Serg. Const. Law, 119.

The residence of the party in another district of a state than that in which the suit is brought in a court of the United States, does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the court. The division of a state into two or more districts, cannot affect the jurisdiction of the court on account of citizenship. If a party is found in the district in which he is sued, the case is out of the prohibition of the judiciary act.-McMicken v. Webb et al., 11 Peters' S. C. Rep., 25.

14. What is the rule as to the authority of a circuit or district court to issue its process into another district, to compel the appearance of a person not residing or found within the jurisdiction of the court from which the process issued ?

The rule is, that those courts have no such authority; and this is the rule in admiralty as well as other causes.-Ex parte Graham, 4 Wash. C. C. Rep., 211. Serg. Const. Law, 120. Hollingsworth v. Adams, 2 Dall., 396. The appearance of the defendant to a foreign attachment in a circuit court of the United States, waives all objection to the non-service of the process.-Pollard & Pickett v. Dwight et al., 4 Cranch, 421.

A foreign attachment may be issued against an alien, as defendant, in the circuit court of the United States.-Serg. on Attach., 44. Fland ers v. The Etna Ins. Co., 3 Mason, 158.

15. What is the rule as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court respecting patents?

The Act of Congress passed February 15th, 1819, provides that the circuit courts shall have original cognizance, as well in equity as at law, of all actions, suits, controversies, and cases arising under any law of the United States, granting or confirming to authors or inventors, the exclu sive right to their respective writings, inventions, and discoveries, and, upon any bill in equity filed by any party aggrieved, in any such cases, shall have authority to grant injunctions according to the course and principles of a court of equity, to prevent the violation of the rights of authors or inventors, secured to them by any of the laws of the United States, on such terms and conditions as the said courts may deem fit and reasonable. Provided, however, that from all judgments and decrees of any circuit court rendered in the premises, a writ of error or an appeal, as the case may require, shall lie to the supreme court of the United States. Serg. Const. Law, 122.

JURISDICTION.

16. What is the rule as to the removal of causes from the state courts to the circuit courts of the United States?

The 12th section of the judiciary act of 1789 provides, that if a suit be commenced in a state court against an alien, or by a citizen of the state in which the suit is brought against a citizen of another state, and the matter in dispute exceed the sum of five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, to be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court, and the defendant shall, at the time of entering appearance in such state court, file a petition for the removal of the cause for trial into the next circuit court to be held in the district where the suit is pending, and offer good and sufficient security for his entering in such court, on the first day of its session, copies of said process against him, and also for his then appearing and entering special bail in the cause, if special bail was originally required therein, it shall then be the duty of the state court to accept the surety As all suits against an alien are not and proceed no further in the cause. embraced by the constitution, but only suits between an alien and a state or a citizen thereof, it seems that this act must be restrained accordingly. -Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall., 11. Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch, 303. Serg. on Const. Law, 115 et 124.

The defendant's petition to the state court, for a removal, must be actually filed at the term when his appearance is entered.-Gibson v. Johnson, 1 Peters' C. C. Rep., 44; and a petition afterwards filed will not give the circuit court jurisdiction, although the state court agree to consider the petition as filed of a proper term when the appearance was enIf a cause be improperly removed, it is the duty of tered nunc pro tunc. the circuit court to remand it; and on error to the supreme court the latter would be bound to remand it.-Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 421.

The petition for removal, filed at the time of entering special bail, is in season, though the bail may have been excepted to.-Argo v. Monteiro, 1 Caines' Rep., 209.

After removing the cause to the circuit court, and appearing there, the defendant cannot object that the circuit court has not jurisdiction.Patterson v. United States, 2 Wheat., BBB Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 421. 221. Hollingsworth v. Adams, 2 Dall., 396.

An ejectment commenced in a state court, technically against the casual ejector, but substantially against the tenant in possession, is, if the landlord be an alien and he be admitted to defend, within the act, though the tenant be a citizen of the state.-Jackson v. Stiles, 4 Johns. Rep., 493. After a cause has been removed, the plaintiff cannot, by relinquishing a part of his demand, oust the court of its jurisdiction.-Wright v. Wills, 1 Peters' C. C. Rep., 220.

17. What is the rule in actions for libel?

It has been held that the court will not, on the defendant's petition, allow a removal to the circuit court of the United States, notwithstanding he is an alien, and makes affidavit that the matter in dispute exceeds the value of five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, because the Act of Congress

is not applicable to torts or vindictive suits.-Rush v. Cobbett, 6 Yeates, 275. Cary v. Cobbett, 2 Yeates, 277. Respublica v. Cobbett, 3 Dall., 467. 18. What is the remedy where an inferior court of a state refuse to allow a removal to the circuit court of the United States?

It is by writ of mandamus from the appellate court of the state, and not from the circuit court.-Brown v. Copin & Wise, 4 Henning & Munf., 173.

19. What if there are two or more defendants in the state courts and one only petitions for removal to the circuit court?

The cause cannot be removed; nor if one of the defendants is a citizen of the same state with the plaintiff.-Beardsley v. Torrey, 4 Wash. C. C. Rep., 286.

20. What if a state be a party?

If a state be a party to a suit below, which has been removed into the circuit court from a state court, the court will remand it, though it may appear the state was made a party to defeat the jurisdiction of the circuit court.-State of New Jersey v. Babcock, 4 Wash. C. C. Rep., 344.

21. What is the rule for removals from state courts, by parties claiming titles to lands, under grants from different states?

By the 12th section of the judiciary Act of Sept., 1789, it is enacted, that if, in any action commenced in a state court, the title of land be concerned, and the parties are citizens of the same state, and the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, the sum or value being made to appear to the satisfaction of the court, either party before the trial, shall state to the court and make affidavit, if it require it, that he claims, and shall rely upon a right or title to the land, under grant from a state, other than that in which the suit is pending, and produce the original grant, or an exemplification of it, except where the loss of the records shall put it out of his power, and shall move that the adverse party inform the court whether he claims a right or title from the state in which the suit is pending; the said adverse party shall give such information, otherwise not to be allowed to plead such grant, or give it in evidence upon the trial; and if he informs that he does claim under any such grant, the party claiming under the grant first mentioned may then, on motion, remove the cause for trial, to the next circuit court to be holden in such district. But if he be defendant, he shall do it under the same regu lations as are before mentioned(Q. 16) in case of the removal of a cause into such court by an alien. And neither party removing the cause shall be allowed to plead, or give in evidence, any other title than by him stated as aforesaid, as the ground of his claim.

The constitution and laws look to the grants as the foundation of jurisdiction, and not to any equitable title previous thereto.-Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wheaton, 378.

22. What is the rule as to the power of the circuit court to issue a man. damus?