Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1.djvu/216

 causes of equity, and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be according to the course of the civil law; and the rates of fees

the same as are or were last allowed by the states respectively in the court exercising supreme jurisdiction in such causes. Provided, That on judgments in any of the cases aforesaid where different kinds of executions are issuable in succession, a capias ad satisfaciendum in the first instance and be at liberty to pursue the same until a tender of the debt and costs in gold or silver shall be made.

.And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue in force until the end of the next session of Congress, and no longer.

, September 29, 1789. issuing out of the courts of the United States, lands and other property not thus subject by the State laws in force at that time. Bank of the United States v. Halsted, 10Wheat. 51; 6Cond. Rep. 22.

See Fullerton v. The Bank of the United States, 1Peters, 604. Yeaton v. Lenox, 8Peters, 123. Toland v. Sprague, 12Peters, 300.

The, expressly adopts the mesne process and modes of proceeding in suits at common law, then existing in the highest State court, under the State laws, which of course included all the regulations of the State law as to bail, and exemption of the party from arrest and imprisonment.In regard also to write of execution, and other final process, and “the proceedings thereupon,” it adopts an equally comprehensive language, and declares they shall be the same as were then used in the courts of the State. Beers v. Huighton, 9Peters, 329. The Lessee of Walden v. Creig’s heirs, 14Peters, 147. The United States v. Knight, 14Peters, 401. Amis v. Smith, 16Peters, 303.

So far as the acts of Congress have adopted the forms of process and modes of proceeding and pleading in the State courts, or have authorize the courts to opt them, and have actually adopted them, they are obligatory; and no further.But no court of the United States is authorized to adopt by rule any provision of State laws which are repugnant to, or incompatible with the positive enactment of Congress upon the jurisdiction, or practice, or proceedings of such courts. Keary et al. v. The Farmers and Mechanics Bank of Memphis, 16Peters, 89. Duncan v. Darst, 17Peters, 209.



.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That when any goods, wares or merchandise

of foreign growth or manufacture, by permit and shall be unladen from any ship or vessel in virtue of a permit obtained for that purpose, and shall be put into a craft or vessel, with intent to be transported to a landing within the same district, it shall be the duty of be accompanied the inspector, or other officer attending the unlading of such goods, ware and merchandise, to deliver to the master or commander of every such craft or vessel, a certificate of such goods, wares and merchandise other proper having been duly entered, and a permit granted therefor; and such certificate shall contain a description of all the packages with their marks and numbers, and shall authorize the transportation and landing of the same, at any landing within the same district, without any further fee or permit, any thing in the said recited act to the contrary notwithstanding.

.And be it further enacted, That so much of the twenty-second section of the said recited act, as exempts vessels of less than twenty,