Page images


1. Definition, 244

(d) lnited States and State 2. Various kinds of Jurisdiction, with

Courts, 295
Definitions Thereof, 251.

(e) States with Boundary Riv3. Constitutional Limitations as to

ers, 296. Jurisdiction, 252.

9. Incidental Jurisdiction ; Terms of (a) Jurisdiction of the Judicial Court ; see also Contempt of Ver the Executive Depart

Court, Courts, 296. mont, 253

10. Jurisdiction Acquired by Consent, (6) Jurisdiction of the 7 udicial 299

Orer: the Legislative De- (a) Over Persons, 299. partment,and Over Political (6) Ozer Subject Nlatter, 301. Questions, 257

(c) Only Given to Judicial Tri(c) Jurisdiction of the Legisla

bunals, 303
tize Over the Executive and II. Jurisdiction Taken Away, 303.
Fudicial Departments, 258.

(a) Generally, 303. 4. Superior or Inferior Courts or

(6) By Statute, 303. Courts of General and Limited

(c) By Consent, 305. Jurisdiction, 265.

(d) By Subsequent Events, 305. (a) Superior Courts, 267. 12. Jurisdiction Enquired Into, 306. (6) Inferior Courts, 268.

(a) When, 306. (c) Fustices' Courts, 270.

(6) By What Court, 307. 5. Presumption as to Jurisdiction, 270. (c) In What Manner. 309. (a) Of Superior Courts, 271.

(1) Motion to Dismiss, 309. (6) Of Inferior Courts, 274.

(2) Demurrer, 309. (c) Of Superior Courts Exer

(3) Plea, 309. cising Special Statutory

(4) Motion to Vacate Judg. Powers, 275

ment, 310. 6. Jurisdiction Determined by Value,

(5) Certiorari. See Certio283.

rari, 310. (a) Courts of Original Juris

(6) Prohibition. See Prohidiction, 283

bition, 311. (6) Courts of Appellate Juris

(8) Habeas Corpus.

See diction, 287.

Habeas Corpus, 311. 7. Exclusive Jurisdiction, 290.

13. Effect of Acting Without Jurisdic8. Concurrent Jurisdiction, 292.

tion, 311.
(a) Generally, 292

(a) Generally, 311.

) , . (6) Law and Equity Courts, 293

(6) Illegal Courts, 312. (c) Jurisdiction in Rem, 295. 14. Special Phrases Construed, 314. 1. Definition.— Jurisdiction is the authority by which judicial 1. Note as to Cross References.—This HABEAS CORPUS;

HABEAS CORPUS; NONRESIDENTS; article discusses only such general PARTITION; PARTNERSHIP; Quo principles affecting the question of WARRANTO; RECEIVERS; SUMMARY jurisdiction as can properly be treated PROCEEDINGS; TRUSTS, etc. etc. separately, and as are stated in the Jurisdiction Over Specific Persons.analysis. For the convenience of the See Consu'LS AND AMBASSADORS; reader the following table of cross EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; references is here given:


WARD; TIABEAS Jurisdiction of Respective Tribunals CORPUS; PARTNERSHIP; RECEIVERS and Public Officers.-See ADMIRALTY; AND Trusts, etc. etc. APPEAL; ARBITRATION ;


OF Process, itc. etc. Jurisdiction in Specific Actions.-See Jurisdiction Acquired and Lost-See BONDS; DIVORCE; EMBEZZLEMENT; also APPEAL; CHANGE OF VENUE;


[ocr errors]

officers take cognizance of and decide causes, or, as it has been

1 most frequently defined the power to hear and determine a cause.2 The definition thus limited implies that if a court having power to hear and determine a cause enters a judgment therein, the validity of such judgment is not affected by the power of the court to

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

P. 26.

DEATH; DISCONTINUANCE ; Error, cise their power.” Hale's Anal., § 11.
WRIT OF; FOREIGN ATTACHMENT ; “The power of hearing and determin-
Notice; REMOVAL OF CAUSES; SERV- ing causes, and of doing justice, in
ICE OF PROCESS, etc. etc.

matters of complaint.” II alifax Anal.,
Conflicts of Jurisdiction. - See Con- v. 3, c. 8, num. 4.
FLICTS OF LAWS; CONSTITUTIONAL In the United States supreme court
LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; HA- in 1832 the word was thus defined by
JUDGMENT; NONRESIDENTS; PARTI- to hear and determine a cause is juris
TION; REMOVAL OF CAUSES, etc. etc. diction; it is 'coram judice,' whenever

Effect of Acting without Jurisdiction. case is presented which brings thio
- See CONSTABLE; HABEAS CORPUS; power into action; if the petitioner
JUDGE; JUDGMENT; JUSTICE OF THE states such a case in his petition that on
PEACE ; MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; a demurrer the court would render
SHERIFF, etc. etc.

judgment in his favor, it is an Incidental Jurisdiction. — See also doubted case of jurisdiction, whether CONTEMPT OF Court; Courts (for on an answer denying and putting in RULES OF COURT).

issue the allegations of the petition, the Restraint of Acting without Jurisdic- petitioner makes out his case, is the tion.-See PROHIBITION, WRIT OF. exercise of jurisdiction conferred by

Territorial Jurisdiction.-See CRIMI- the filing of a petition containing all the NAL PROCEDURE ; EQUITY ; EJECT- requisites and in the manner prescribed MENT; NONRESIDENTS; SERVICE OF by law.” U. S. v. Arrendo et al., 6 PROCESS; PARTITION, etc. etc.

Peters (U.S.) 691, 709. 1. Bouv. L. Dict. (15th ed.), vol. 2, And the same justice said later (1838)

that “jurisdiction is the power to hear 2. Definition.—There is perhaps no and determine the subject matter in word in English law that has been controversy between parties to a suit, more frequently_defined than this of to adjudicate or exercise any judicial "jurisdiction.” From the earliest times power over them; the question is, we find the question of its proper defini- whether on a case before a court, their tion engaging the attention of jurists. action is judicial or extrajudicial; withThus we find the following: “And out the authority of law, to render a jurisdiction is nothing else than to judgment or decree upon the rights of have the authority of judging, that is the litigant parties. If the law confers of pronouncing judgment between the power to render a judgment or departies in actions against persons or cree,

then the court has jurisdicthings, according as they have been tion; what shall be adjudged or decreed brought into judgment by an authority between the parties, and with which is either ordinary or delegated, concern- the right of the case, is judicial action ing which we have spoken above con- by hearing and determining it.” State cerning the powers of those who judge.” of Rhode Island v. State of MassachuBracton De Legibus Angliae (Master setts, 12 Peters (U. S.), 657, 718. See of Rolls' ed. 1883), vol. 6, p. 159, or also Grignon's Lessee v. Astor et al., lib. 5, tract 5, fol. 400 v. Furis- 2 How. (U. S.) 319, 338. dictio est potestas de publico introducta Many of the decisions in the State cum necessitate jurisdicendi, i Bulst. courts are to the same effect. Thus in 210.” The case of the Marshalsea, 10 a recent case in Indiana (1887), the Coke 73a, or as translated by Mr. court, in reversing the court below on Burrill: “ Jurisdiction is a power in- an appeal on the ground that the court troduced of common right [by public had not jurisdiction in the case, said: authority or for the common benefit] “Two things are absolutely essential to arising out of the necessity of declaring the power of a court to decide a legal the law."

controversy—jurisdiction of the subject “The right by which judges exer- matter and jurisdiction of the person.


enter the judgment in question.1 To escape this difficulty there is a tendency in the latest decisions in the United States to hold

Both must exist, otherwise it is the im- could collaterally revise and correct its perative duty of the court to decline to decision. Thus in a case where, in an do more than ascertain and declare adverse proceeding, a decree had been that it has no power to examine or de- entered restraining a municipal corcide the merits of the controversy. poration froin granting to certain perAuthors and courts agree upon this sons the right to construct a railroad rudimentary principle of law. Neither on a city street, and subsequently a in reason nor upon authority can person had been adjudged guilty of a there be a doubt as to its soundness. contempt in not obeying that injunction, Power is essential to the validity of and fined on appeal to the court of every act, judicial, legislative or exec- errors and appeals, JOHNSON, J., in utive. Where there is no power to delivering the opinion of the appellate hear and determine, there can be no court, quoted the above definition from judicial decision. Expressions of indi. State of Rhode Island, State of Massavidual opinion there may be, but a' chusetts, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 718), ante, n. 2, judicial judgment there cannot be. A p. 245), and then continued: “This, I

. judicial judgment is the product of apprehend, points to the true line of power—the power of the law—and is enquiry to determine the question of junot the mere expression of the individ- risdiction. We are not called upon to ual opinion of a judge. The question say whether the court decided right or is purely and intrinsically one of power, not in granting the injunction, but for the jurisdiction of a court consists whether it became their duty to decide solely in its power to hear and deter- either that it should be granted or demine the causes brought to its bar. If nied. If such was their duty, then jurisdiction does not exist, power is they had jurisdiction, and their decision,

, absent, and if power is lacking, an ex- be it correct or erroneous, is the law pression of opinion upon any other than of the case until it shall be reversed a jurisdictional question, although ju- upon appeal; and can only be quesdicial in form, is simply the opinion of its tioned upon a direct proceeding to author; valuable, it may possibly be, as review it, and not collaterally.” Peoan argument, but effective as the ple v. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 263, 267. opinion of the court it is not.” Robert- And in 1809, in an action of ejectson v. State (Ind.), 7 West. Rep. 481, ment, wherein the defendants relied 488; s. C., 10 Northeast. Rep. 582, 583. upon a purchase at an execution issued Many of the State courts have defined on a judgment confiscating the said real jurisdiction as the power to hear and estate, the plaintiff contended that determine the cause. See Wightman the act did not authorize confiscation in v. Krasner, 20 Ala. 446; Goodman v.

this case.

The supreme court refused Winter, 64 Ala. 410; Tramwell v. to consider this question, because the Town of Russellville, 34 Ark. 105;


court which entered the judgment had Hickman v. O'Neal, 10 Cal. 292; Ex general jurisdiction in the action, and parte Bennett, 44 Cal. 84; Buch v. Han- therefore its judgment, even if erroson, 70 Ill. 480; Schroeder v. Mer- neous, was not void, and could not be chants & Mec. Ins. Co., 104 Ill. 71; enquired into in a collateral proceeding. State v. Lazarus (La.), 1 South. Rep. Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedy, 5 Cranch 361, 391; Bumstead v. Read, 31 Barb. (U. S.) 173. (N Y.) 661; King v. Poole, 36 Barb. So in another early case in the (N. Y.) 242; Brownsville v. Basse, United States supreme court (1830), 43 Tex. 440; State v. Whitford, 54 where in a petition for a habeas corpus Wis. 150, 157

to inquire into the legality of the 1. Alleged Defect in Definition.- If petitioner's imprisonment by virtue of jurisdiction is simply the power to hear a judgment of a United States circuit and determine, it follows that a court court, the petitioner alleged that the inhaving jurisdiction of a cause may dictments under which he was conenter whatever judgment it may think victed and sentenced to imprisonment, proper, because it is a principle of the charged no offence for which the priscommon law that the judgment of a oner was punishable in the court, or of court having jurisdiction is conclusive, which that court could take cognizance, and therefore there is no tribunal that and consequently that the proceedings


that jurisdiction is not only the power to hear and determine, but also the power to render the particular judgment entered in the particular case. 1

were coram non judice, the court re- ing magistrate, as that is a matter which
fused the writ, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ought to be decided by the magistrate.
MARSHALL saying: “We have no power Ex parte Smith, 3 H. & N. 227; and
to examine the proceedings on a writ where the jurisdiction of the court to
of error, and it would be strange if, try and punish an offence is not denied,
under color of a writ to liberate an in- another court on a hearing in habeas cor-
dividual from unlawful imprisonment, pus will not enquire into the authority of
we could substantially reverse a judg- the court to pass the sentence imposed,
ment which the law has placed beyond nor is it necessary to set out the au-
our control. An imprisonment under thority of the court to pass such sen-
a judgment cannot be unlawful unless ence on the return. Ex parte Brennan,
that judgment be an absolute nullity; 10 Q. B. 492 (59 E. C. L.).
and it is not a nullity if the court has In the case of inferior courts in Eng-
general jurisdiction of the subject, land the sentence will be enquired into.
although it should be erroneous." Ex Thus in a case where a justice of the
parte Watkins, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 193, 203. peace was empowered to impose a
Relying on this decision it was held in penalty, half of which was to go to the
the United States circuit court, sitting in informer and half to the overseers of
New York, that “The circuit judge has the poor, and the justice gave the
no jurisdiction to review, on habeas whole of the penalty to the
corpus, the judgment of the circuit court, overseers of the poor, it was held
on a conviction and sentence on an in- that the judgment was void, and that
dictment, on an allegation that the the justice having arrested the defend-
statute under which such sentence was ant for nonpayment of the penalty was
imposed had been repealed before such liable for damages therefor in an
sentence was passed.” In re Callicot, action of trespass. Griffith v. Haines
8 Blatch. (U. S.) 89.

et al., 2 M. & W. 335 (1837). This, And so it has been held in the state however, simply follows the general courts that, in case of a commitment rule that the record of a justice of the under the judgment of a court having peace must show jurisdiction. jurisdiction, the record of the court 1. Definition Resulting from the will only be looked into on a habeas Latest Cases.—There is a very clearly corpus proceeding to ascertain whether defined attempt in the latest cases in a judgment exists, without regard to the United States, however, to escape the question whether it be right or from the position that the judgment of wrong Ex parte Winston, 9 Nev. 71; a court having jurisdiction to hear and People v. Shea, 3 Park. Cas. (N. Y.) deterınine is conclusive, by adding to 562.

the definition of jurisdiction a new That this is the law in England element, viz: that jurisdiction is not would seem to be clear. For while on merely the power to hear and detera writ of habeas corpus enquiry will mine, but also the power to render the be made into the question whether the particular judgment which court had lawfully acquired jurisdiction rendered. Thus in a recent case (1873), in the cases, thus noticing that an ar- in which it was decided that where a rest was made on Sunday_and was county court having jurisdiction to autherefore illegal. Ex parte Eggington, thorize a sale of a decedent's estate for 2 El. & Bl. 717 (75 E. C. L.). Or that his debts does autnorize it, and the the party petitioner was privileged sale is made, the sale must be presumed from arrest. Ex parte Dakins, 16 C. in this court to have been regularly B. 77 (81 E. C. L.). Or that the offence made. MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE, in dewas not indictable. Bushel's Case, 6 livering the opinion of the court, said: Howell's St. Trials 999. Yet it has “The settled rule of law is that jurisdicbeen expressly decided that it is not tion having attached in the original competent at the hearing on a habeas case, everything done within the power corpus proceeding for a person to show of that jurisdiction, when collaterally by affidavit that the offence of which he questioned, is to be held conclusive of was convicted was not committed the rights of the parties, unless imwithin the jurisdiction of the convict- peached for fraud." Cornett V.



[ocr errors]

Williams, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 226, 250. and it appeared that such revision had

And in 1876, in a case where the title been directed and made in the manner to certain real estate was involved, it prescribed by law, the supreme court, on was held that a prior confiscation of this a writof habeas corpus,refused to enquire real estate, in a proceeding for a for- into the question whether there was in feiture in which the record showed that fact a mistake, and whether the change no notice had been given to the owner, in the sentence was justifiable. Ex was void. MR. JUSTICE FIELD, in de- parte Reed, 100 U. S. 13. livering the opinion of the court, refers In 1879 in the election cases arising to the preceding cases, quotes the out of the act of congress making cerlanguage used in Cornett v. Williams, tain acts by election officers a penal of20 Wall. (U. S.) 226, 250 (cited supra), fence against the United States, the suas an accurate statement of the doctrine, preme court decided that the jurisdicand further says that “the doctrine" tion exercisable by them in habeas that when a court has once acquired corpus proceedings extended to an enjurisdiction, it has a right to decide quiry into the question whether the act every question which arises in the cause, under which the petitioner had been and its judgment, however erroneous, tried, convicted and sentenced was or cannot be collaterally assailed, is un- was not constitutional, whether the doubtedly correct as a general proposi court had jurisdiction to review the tion, but, like all general propositions, is judgment by writ of error or not. Ex subject to many qualifications in its ap- parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371. plication.

The doctrine is only And in the Kuklux case, Mr.JUSTICE correct when the court proceeds after MILLER, in delivering the unanimous acquiring jurisdiction of the cause, ac- opinion of the court, says: "That this cording to the established modes court has


general authority governing the class to which the case to review on error or appeal the belongs, and does not transcend in the judgments of the circuit courts of extent or character of its judgment the the United States in cases within law which is applicable to it. Windsor their criminal jurisdiction is beyond 7'. McVeigh, 93 N. S. 274, 282, 283. question, but it is equally well settled that

In like manner, although it has been when a prisoner is held under the expressly decided in the United States sentence of any court of the United courts that the question whether a States in regard to a matter wholly bematter for which a party is indicted in yond or without the jurisdiction of the the district court is or is not a crime court, it is not only within the authority against the laws of the United States of the supreme court, but it is its duty is within the jurisdiction of said district to enquire into the cause of commitcourt, whose decision thereon will not ment when the matter is properly be reviewed in the supreme court by brought to its attention, and if found to habeas corpus. Ex parte Watkins, 3 be, as charged, a matter of which such Pet. (U. S.) 193, 203; Ex parte Parks, a court had no jurisdiction, to discharge 93 U. S. 18.

Yet in a case where a a prisoner from confinement. court had imposed a fine and imprison- It is, however, to be carefully obment, and the statute only conferred served that this latter principle does power to punish by fine or imprison- not authorize the court to convert the ment, and the fine was paid, and the writ of habeas corpus into a writ of error court then, at the same term, modified by which the errors of law committed by its judgment by imposing imprison- the court that passed the sentence can ment instead of the fornier sentence, be reviewed here; for if that court had the supreme court, on a writ of habeas jurisdiction of the party and of the ofcorpus, released the prisoner, on the fence for which he was tried, and has ground that the second sentence was not exceeded its powers in the sentence void for want of power to impose it. which it pronounced, this court can enEx parte Lange, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 163. quire no further.” Ex parte Yarbrough, A strong dissenting opinion was, how- 110 U. S. 651, 653. ever, filed by Mr. JUSTICE CLIFFORD, In accordance with this modern idea and Mr.Justice Stroxs also dissented. of jurisdiction is the late case (1987) But in a subsequent case, where a court in the United States supreme court of martial had revised its sentence and Rosenbaum v. Bauer. In that case a imposed one more severe, and it ap- suit was hegun in a State court between peared that the court had power to so citizens of different States, in which the sevise their sentence in case of mistake, plaintiff prayed for a mandamus. The

« PreviousContinue »