Jubisdiction

The law is found in the acts of congress, particularly the Articles of War, the Army Regulations and in the customary Military Law; Carter v. Mc Claughry, 183 U. S. 366, 22 Sup. Ct 181, 46 L. Ed. 236. The act of 1800 consists of three sections, the first section containing one hundred and one articles, which describe very minutely the various military offences, the punishments which may be inflicted, the manner of summoning and the organization of courtsmartial. These articles are called the articles of war. Their provisions extend to the militia mustered into the United States service, and to marines when iserving with the army. They have been changed from time The military law of England was contained in the Mutiny Act, which has been passed annually from April 12, 1689, to 1879, when the Mutiny Act was consolidated with the articles of war, and this act was amended in 1881 by the Army Act (see Mutiny Act), and the additional articles of war made and established by the sovereign. 2 Steph. Com. 689. In addition, there are in both countries various usages which constitute an unwritten military law, which applies to those cases where there are no express provisions. Martin V. Mott, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 19, 6 L. Ed. 537; Ben6t, MU. Law 3. “Martial law [that is, military law] Is the will of the general who commands the army. It can be indulged only In cases of necessity and ceases when the necessity ends. When called in question, the necessity must be affirmatively shown by the power seeking to exercise it.” In re Eagan, 6 Parker, Cr. R. (N. Y.) 676, id., 5 Blatchf. 319, Fed. Cas. No. 4,303 (a case arising in 1865 in South Carolina). When the territory of the states which were making war against the national government was in the military occupation of the United States, military tribunals under the statute and under the laws of war had exclusive jurisdiction to try and punish offences of every grade committed there.by persons in the military service. Otlicers and soldiers of the army were not subject to the laws of the enemy nor amenable to its tribunals for offences committed by them during the war. They were answerable only to their own government, and only by its laws, as enforced by its armies, could they be punished; unless superseded by the commander of the forces of occupation, the laws of the state, as between the inhabitants, remain in force and the courts continue to exercise their jurisdiction; Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S. 609, 24 L. Ed. 1118. Where actual war Is raging, acts done by the military authorities are not justiciable by the ordinary tribunals; the military tribunals are alone competent to deal with such questions. The fact that for some purposes some tribunals had been permitted to pursue their ordinary course Is not conclusive that war is not raging. Neither an application for summary release from extraordinary arrest nor an action for anything done as an extraordinary act of necessity will be entertained by the ordinary courts during the continuance of a state of war in the jurisdiction, when the court is satisfied that a responsible officer acting in good faith is prepared to justify the act complained of; [1902] A. 0. 109. V A soldier in time of peace Is subject to the civil authority and may be arrested and fere wltb his militaxy duties, any unfair dls* crimination against him, or departure from the strict requirements of the law, or any unusual punishment may Justify his release on habeas corpus; Ex parte Schlaffer, 154 Fed. 921. Where a soldier on a military reservation had been convicted of an offence, and attempted to escape and was killed by a sergeant, it was held that if the act was in compliance with his supposed duties as a soldier and in good faith, without malice, the sergeant was protected; U. S. v. Clark, 31 Fed. 710. If a sergeant of the guard when he shoots a prisoner has reasonable groimd to believe and does believe that the act was necessary to the suppression of a mutiny, he is Justified; and he is not bound to weigh with scrupulous nicety the amount of force necessary to suppress disorder. The exercise of a reasonable discretion is all that is required;

s 1. Governmental authority. In extradition treaties, more than mere physical, territorial, quasi territorial, or treaty jurisdiction; has the enlarged meaning which is equivalent to *' authority, cognizance, or power of the courts." * See State, 8(2); Tebbitobt, 1. 3. Power to hear and determine a cause.' Power to hear and determine the subjectmatter in controversy between parties to a suit, to adjudicate or exei-cise any judicial power over them.* Relates to the exercise of judicial powers.^ Refers to the power of the court over the parties, the subject-matter, the res or property in contest, and the authority of the court to render the judgment or decree which it assumes to make.s By jurisdiction over the " subject-matter " is meant the. nature of the cause of action or relief sought; and this is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court, and is to be sought for in the general nature of its powers or in the authority specially conferred. Jurisdiction of the "person" is obtained by the service of process, or by the voluntary appearance of the party in the progress of the cause. Jurisdiction of the " res " is obtained by seizure ' [Webster's Die. i'Hadley, Bom. Law, 61, 59; Cushing, Rom. Law, §§ 5-6; Maine, Anc. Law, 35-38. " L. jus, right; dicere, to proclaim. < Exp. Vogt, 18 Int. Rev. Ree. 18. 'United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. »r09 (1S32), Baldwin, J.; Cornell v. Williams, 20 Wall. 249 (1873). •Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 'TIS (1838), Baldwin, J. ' Reid V. Morton, 119 HI. 130 (1886). « Cooper V. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 316 (1870), Miller, J.; under process of the court, whereby it is held to abide such order as the court may make concerning it.^ See Notice, 1, Judicial. Hence, want of jurisdiction may be shown as to the subject-matter, the person, or, in proceedings in rem, as to the thing. '^ ^ Any movement by a court is the exercise of jurisdiction... If the law confers the power to render a judgment or decree, then the court has jurisdiction. ^ Jurisdiction is coram judice whenever a case is presented which brings the power into action.* Opposed, non-jurisdiction: the want of jurisdiction. Jurisdictional. Concerning, also exhibiting, the power to hear and dete Vmine a cause; opposed to non-jurisdictional: as, a jurisdictional amount, fact, limit, question; non-jurisdictional facts." Original jurisdiction. Jurisdiction conferred upon, or inherent in, a court in the first instance. Appellate jurisdiction. Power to review the final judgment, order or decree, of some inferior court.^ The essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction ip, that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause. It implies that the subject-matter has been already instituted and acted upon by some other court whose judgment or proceedings are to be revised.' Exclusive jiirisdiction. Jurisdiction confined to a particular tribunal or grade of courts. Concurrent or co-ordinate jurisdiction. Exists co-extensively and cotemporaneoiisly in courts of equal or of different grade or systems. Exclusive jurisdiction is necessarily original, though original jurisdiction is not necessarily e^iclusive.^ The rule that among courts of concurrent jurisdiction the one which first obtains jurisdiction has the exclusive right to decide every question arising in the case, is limited to suits between the same parties or privies, seeking the same relief, and to such questions ^ Cooper V. Reynolds, ante. ' Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 401-68 (1873), cases. 3 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, ante. < United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. *709 (1832). See also 2 How. 338; 7 Saw. 385; 17 F. R. 724; 25 Ala. 91; 71 id. 477; 11 Ark. 544; 26 id. 436; 10 Cal. 292; 43 id. 368; 44 id. 88; 16 Pla. 332; 54 Iowa, 79, 157; 17 La. An. 70; 27 id. 71; 57 Me. 154; 8 Mete, Mass., 462; 74 Mo. 423; 34 N. J, L. 422; 39 id. 262; 63 N. Y. 450; 72 id. 231; 36 Barb. S44; 13 Pa. 630; 32 id. 357; 42 Tex. 339; 48 id. 440; 44 Wis. 454. » 106 U. S. 681, 682, 636. " See Exp. Batesville, &c. R. Co., 39 Ark. 87 (1882). ' 2 Story, Const. § 1761; Piqua Bank v. Kaoup, 6 Ohio St. 330 (1856); Auditor of State v. Atchison, &c. IJ. Co., as arise ordinarily and properly in the progress of the first suit brought. 1 The forbearance which courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, administered under a single system, exercise toward each other, whereby conflicts are avoided, by avoiding interference with the process of each other, is a principle of comity, with perhaps no higher sanction than the Utility which comes from concord; but between State courts and those of the United States, it is something more. It is a principle of right and of law, and therefore of necessity. It leaves nothing to discretion or mere convenience. These courts do not belong to the same system, so far as their jurisdiction is concurrent; and although they co-exist in the same place, they are independent and have no common superior. They exercise jurisdiction in different planes.' Where a cotirt, whether State or Federal, has legal custody of persons or property, the courts of the other jm-isdiction will not arrest such persons or property. The possession of the officer is the possession of the court, and such action would invade the jurisdiction of the court.* Where, in attachment proceedings in a State court, the sheriff is unable to make actual seizure because the property is in the possession of a United States marshal under an attachment from a Federal court, the creditor, though residing in the same State with the defendant, may, upon service of notice of his claim upon the marshal, intervene in the Federal court, a!nd, upon showing a properly adjudicated claim, secure a right to share in the proceeds of the sale of the property.* Limited or special jurisdiction. Jurisdiction which is confined to particular causes, as, those involving demands for money up to a certain sum. General jurisdiction. Extends to all cases comprised within a class or classes of causes, in particular to causes of a civil nature.' Inferior jurisdiction is opposed to superior jurisdiction, civil to criminal jurisdiction, equitable and statutory to common-law jurisdiction.* In chancery, ordinary jurisdiction is that wherein the common law is observed; extraordinary, that of equity and good conscience. See Chancery. i Buck V. Colbath, 3 Wall. 345 (1865); Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil Cloth Co., 113 U. S. 294 (1884), cases; Smith V. Bauer, 9 Col. 3S0 (1886). ' Covell V. Heyman, 1 11 U. S. 182 (1884), Matthews, J.; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 516 (1858). 'Senior v. Pierce, 31 F. R. 637 (1887), cases; Melvin v. Robinson, ib. 634 (1887), cases; Judd v. Bankers', &c. Tel. Co., ib. 183 (1887), cases. ' Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U. S. 131 (1888), cases, Matthews, J. ° See Grace v. American Central Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 283 (1883). Where there is a lack of jurisdiction, a judgment is void; where there is a wrongful or defective exercise of the power, the judgment is voidable,' q. v. Jurisdiction once acquired is effectual for all purposes, and exclusive.^ But the court must proceed according to the established modes governing the class to which the case belongs, and must not transcend the law in the extent or character of its judgment." Jurisdiction having attached in the original case, everything done within the power of that jurisdiction, when collaterally questioned, is to be held conclusive of the rights of the parties, unless impeached for fraud. Every intendment is to be made to support the proceeding. Infinite confusion would ensue were the rule otherwise.* The record of a court of special jurisdiction must show its jurisdiction: nothing is presumed in its favor; otherwise, as to a court of general jurisdiction.* See further Apfabeue, De non, etc. Jurisdiction is given by the law; consent can neither give nor take it away," — except, perhaps, as to jurisdiction over the person.' Where there is collusion to give jurisdiction, the court will dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.^ When a law conferring jurisdiction is repealed without a reservation as to pending cases, suc*h cases fall with the law." See Court; Judgment; Judicial, Power; Judex, 2, Boni, etc.; Prohibition, 1.