Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1.djvu/203

 or vice consul, shall be a party. And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court, in all actions at law against citizens of the United States, shall be by jury.

The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for As to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, see the cases collected in Peters’s Digest, “Supreme Court," "Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court," and the following cases: The United States v. Goodwin, 7Cranch, 108; 2Cond. Rep. 434. Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3Dall. 321; 1Cond. Rep. 144. United States v. Moore, 3Cranch, 159; 1Cond. Rep. 480. Owings v. Norwood’s Lessee, 5Cranch, 344; 2Cond. Rep. 275. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1Wheat. 304; 3Cond. Rep, 575. Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 3Cranch, 268; 1Cond. Rep. 524. Ex parte Kearney, 7Wheat. 38; 5Cond. Rep. 225. Smith v. The State of Maryland, 6Cranch, 286; 2Cond. Rep. 377. Inglee v. Coolidge, 2Wheat. 363; 4Cond. Rep. 155. Nicholls et al. v. Hodges Ex’ors, 1Peters, 562. Buel et al. v. Van Ness, 8Wheat. 312; 5Cond. Rep. 445. Miller v. Nicholls, 4Wheat. 311; 4Cond. Rep. 465. Matthews v. Zane et al., 7Wheat. 164; 5Cond. Rep. 265. M‘Cluny v. Silliman, 6Wheat. 598; 5Cond. Rep. 197. Houston v. Moore, 3Wheat. 433; 3Cond. Rep. 286. Montgomery v. Hernandez et al., 12Wheat. 129; 6Cond. Rep. 475. Cohens v. Virginia, 6Wheat. 264; 5Cond. Rep. 90. Gibbons v. Ogden, 6Wheat. 448; 5Cond. Rep. 134. Weston et al. v. The City Council of Charleston, 2Peters, 449. Hickie v. Starke et. al., 1Peters, 94. Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2Peters, 380. M‘Bride v. Hoey, 11Peters, 167. Ross v. Barland et. al., 1Peters, 655. The City of New Orleans v. De Armas, 9Peters, 224. Crowell v. Randell, 10Peters, 368. Williams v. Norris, 12Wheat. 117; 6Cond. Rep. 462. Menard v. Aspasia, 5Peters, 505. Worcester v. The State of Georgia, 6Peters, 615. The United States v. Moore, 5Cranch, 159; 1Cond. Rep. 480.

and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and, Mandamus.The following cases have been decided on the power of the Supreme Court to issue a mandamus.Marbury v. Madison, 1Cranch, 137; 1Cond. Rep. 267. M‘Cluny v. Silliman, 2Wheat. 369; 4Cond. Rep. 162. United States v. Lawrence, 3Dall. 42; 1Cond. Rep. 19. United States v. Peters, 3Dall. 121; 1Cond. Rep. 60. Ex parte Burr, 9Wheat. 529; 5Cond. Rep. 660. Parker v. The Judges of the Circuit Court of Maryland, 12Wheat. 561; 6Cond. Rep. 644. Ex parte Roberts et al., 6Peters, 216. Ex parte Davenport, 6Peters, 661. Ex parte Bradstreet, 12Peters, 174; 7Peters, 634; 8 Peters, 588. Life and Fire Ins. Comp. of New York v. Wilson’s heirs, 8Peters, 291.

On a mandamus a superior court will never direct in what manner the discretion of the inferior tribunal shall be exercised; but they will, in a proper case, require an inferior court to decide.Ibid. Life and Fire Ins. Comp. of New York v. Adams, 9Peters, 571. Ex parte Story, 12Peters, 339. Ex parte Jesse Hoyt, collector, &c., 13Peters, 279.

A writ of mandamus is not a proper process to correct an erroneous judgment or decree rendered in an inferior court.This is a matter which is properly examinable on a writ of error, or an appeal to a proper appellate tribunal.Ibid.

Writs of mandamus from the Circuit Courts of the United States.A Circuit Court of the United States has power to issue a mandamus to a collector, commanding him to grant a clearance. Gilchrist et al. v. Collector of Charleston, 1Hall’s Admiralty Law Journal, 429.

The power of the Circuit Court to issue the writ of mandamus is confined exclusively to those cases in which it may be necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction. M‘Intire v. Wood, 7Cranch, 504; 2Cond. Rep. 588.

The Circuit Courts of the United States have no power to issue writs of mandamus after the practice of the King’s Bench; but only where they are necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction. Smith v. Jackson, Paine’s C. C. R. 453.

in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.

.And be it further enacted, That all the before-mentioned courts of the United States, shall have power to issue writs of , , and all other writs not specially provided for