CHAPTER V. CONCURRENT CIVIL JURISDICTION, STATE AND NATIONAL. I. EXTENT THEREOF. II. III. SUIT IN NAME OF LEGAL OWNER IN UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT. IV. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL COURTS IN Cases of ConcurRENT JURISDIC TION. V. JURISDICTION OF TWO OR MORE DISTRICTS IN ONE STATE. I. EXTENT THEREOF. Under the national Constitution and laws, the circuit courts of the United States have original cognizance concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law, or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum of five hundred dollars, in the following enumerated cases, viz.: 1. Suits arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; 2. Suits in which the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners; 3. Suits in which there is a controversy between citizens of different States; 4. Suits between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States; 5. Suits in a controversey between citizens of a State and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.1 And in naturalization proceedings. But no one can be arrested, in any such suit, in one district for trial in another. 2 'Act of Cong. March 3, 1875; Judiciary Act, 1 Stat, at Large, 78, § 11; Desty's Federal Procedure, 71, § 1, Act of Cong. March 3, 1875; Judi ciary Act, 1 Stat. at Large, 78, § 11. See, also, ex parte Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. 456. Common Law Civil Jurisdiction. The term common law civil jurisdiction, as here used, is intended, in the language of the United States Supreme Court, to "embrace all suits which are not of equity and admiralty jurisdiction, whatever may be the peculiar form which they may assume, to settle legal rights;" and not such proceedings only "as in forms and practice conform strictly to those of the old common law."1 For there is no common law of the United States, as a nation; but the national courts (except in criminal cases) administer the laws of the respective States wherein they are held." Common and Civil Law as the Basis of State Jurisprudence. And although the common law prevails in most of the States to a certain extent, in their local jurisprudence, and forms the basis of their judicial system, yet its continued existence in their more modern codes and revisions is of so modified a character as to retain merely its leading principles and outlines, while again, in some of them, the civil law is to be regarded as the origin of their system. For the purpose, however, of discussing the subject matter of this section, it is intended, as above stated, to embrace all civil proceedings which do not belong to equity and maritime jurisdiction. 3 II. SUIT IN NAME OF LEGAL OWNER, IN UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT. A person having the requisite qualification as to citizenship, and the legal right of the subject matter of the suit, may sue in the United States Circuit Court without regard to the citizenship of others who may be interested in the proceeds of the suits. Hence a note to bearer, for use of others named, as for instance, an unincorporated company, may be sued in such court by the bearer thereof, as the law places the legal interest in him. The courts have nothing to do with the trust, nor with the citi 1 Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 446, 447. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591; Lorman v. Clarke, 2 McLean, 568; Van Ness v. Packard, 2 Pet. 137; People v. Folsom, 5 Cal. 373. Though the com. mon law cannot be resorted to as giv. ing jurisdiction to the United States court, yet it may be resorted to, to assist in deciding certain questions af ter the jurisdiction has attached. U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Woodb. & M. 401; Gardner's Institutes, 301, 302. See post, § 1, Chap. 6; Cooley on Const. Lim. *21-25. zenship, of those to whom the equitable interest in the proceeds may be going.1 III. CITIZENSHIP AND PROOF OF VALUE IN CONTROVERSY. In an action or suit, in a circuit court of the United States, by a citizen of one State against a citizen of another, it is not necessary that the plaintiff's petition, bill, or declaration should allege or state that the State of which either party is a citizen is one of the United States. It is sufficient if the State itself be named, and the court will necessarily take notice of the fact, if such it be, that such State is one of the United States, composing the Union, or national government.2 So, when citizenship of a litigant party, of a State, is necessary to be averred or stated in pleading, an allegation that the party is a citizen of the United States, naturalized in a certain State, and residing therein, is held to be equivalent to an averment that the party is a citizen of that State. To confer jurisdiction, the citizenship must be shown or alleged in the body of the bill or declaration, in such manner and place as to be traversable, and not merely in the caption.4 Proof made of Value, to confer Jurisdiction. And when the nature of the action or suit is such that the demand is not for money, as for instance in an ejectment or other suit for land, and the law does not require the value thereof to be stated in the declaration or petition, then the practice in the United States courts is to allow the value to be proven in evidence." Rules of Evidence. The rules of evidence in a State are also rules of evidence in the courts of the United States, under the 34th section of the judiciary act, while sitting within the limits of such State; and such State rules of evidence are always followed by the Federal courts in commercial cases as in others. 'Bonnafee v. Williams, 3 How. 574. 4 Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148; Findlay v. Bank of U. S., 2 McL. 44; Bayerque . Haley, 1 McAll. 97; Dodge v. Perkins, 4 Mass. 435; Vose v. Philbrook, 3 Story, 336; Course v. Stead, 4 Dal. 22. sitting in a State, as well The construction given to Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634. 647; Crawford v. Burnham, 4 Am. Law Times, (o. s.) 228. State laws by State courts govern the United States court,1 unless the law should be of a general nature, not confined to the locality or State. IV. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL COURTS. Whether decisions of the national courts are to be regarded as paramount rules of law or not, depends in some respects upon the character of the subject matter of the cause in which they are rendered, and the manner of obtaining jurisdiction of the action. In cases of concurrent jurisdiction with the State courts, as where the jurisdiction of the Federal courts rests upon the citizenship of the parties, and in which the State laws are administered, then if the questions involved are such as in regard to which the State decisions are deferred to by the Federal court, it results therefrom that the dignity and force of the judgment as a rule of law, as also the validity and effect thereof, is only such as is accorded to judgments of State courts, under similar circumstances.2 V. JURISDICTION, TWO OR MORE DISTRICTS IN ONE STATE. When a State is divided into two districts, and a United States Circuit Court is held in each district, a defendant who is a citizen of such State may be sued in either district, if found and served therein, by a citizen of a different State. It is no defense as against the jurisdiction of the court that the defendant resides in the other district than the one in which he is sued. The fact of being found and served within the district in which he is sued brings the case within the very language of the act of the law. It takes it out of the prohibition of the judiciary act, that "no civil suit shall be brought in the courts of the United States, against an inhabitant of the United States, by any original process, in any other district than that whereof he is 378; Haussknecht . Claypool, 1 1 Gut v. Minnesota, 9 Wall. 35; King v. Wilson, 1 Dill. 555; Polk v. Wendal, 9 Cr. 87; Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119; Shelby v. Guy, 11 Whcat. 367; Bank of U. S. v. Daniel, 12 Pet. 33; 2 Dupasseur v. Rochereau, 21 Wall. 130. an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ." In all cases on contract the suit may be brought in the circuit court of the district wherein the defendant is found. If sued out of the district in which he lives, he may object, but this is a privilege which he may waive. When the jurisdiction of the person will enable the court to give effect to its judgment or decree, it may be exercised; but if the subject matter is local, and is situated beyond the limits of the district, the circuit court sitting in such district has no jurisdiction thereof. Actions for real property, or ejectment for possession thereof, or trespass quare clausum fregit, or trespass upon real property, in any manner, will not lie in any other jurisdiction than where the real property, sued for or injured, is situated.3 VI. JURISDICTION IN NATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS. The jurisdiction of national and State courts in cases of naturalization is concurrent, although the proceedings are under the laws of the former. The jurisdiction was originally conferred upon the supreme, superior, district or circuit courts of the several States, and of territorial districts of the United States, and upon the circuit and district courts of the United States, concurrently. But doubts having arisen as to the meaning of the term district courts of the States, it was subsequently enacted that every court of record in any individual State, having common law jurisdiction and a seal and clerk or prothonotary, shall be considered as a district court within the meaning of said original enactment. Thus it is that all State courts of record, having a seal and clerk or prothonotary, have, with the United States territorial courts, and United States district and circuit courts, jurisdiction, under the acts of Congress, of naturalization cases. The authority to provide by law for naturalization of foreigners, or others, is exclusive in the Congress of the United States. By adoption of the United States Constitution, the naturalization laws of the several States ceased to exist." McMicken v. Webb, 11 Pet. 25. 2 North. Ind. R. R. Co. v. Michigan Cent. R. R. Co., 15 How. 233. 3 Ibid. 42 U. S. Stat. at Large, 153, § 1. 52 U. S. Stat. at Large, 153, § 3. Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 260. 'U. S. v. Villato, 2 Dall. 370. |