Cases And Readings On the Jurisdiction And Procedure of the Federal Courts

diment arising from the residence of the parti-s the right may oe enforced in the proper federal tribunal whether it be a court of equity, of admiralty or of common law. "The statute in such cases docs not confer the jurisdiction. That exists already, and it is invoked to give effect to the right by applying the appropriate remedy. This principle may be laid down as axiomatic in our national jurisprudence. A party forfeits nothing by going into a federal tribunal. Jurisdiction having attached, his case is tried there upon the same principles, and its determination is governed by the same considerations, as if it had been brought in the proper state tribunal of the same locality. In no class of cases has the application of this principle bfen sustained by this court more frequently than in those of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." And Wilson v. Pcrrin, 11 C. C. A. 66, and Hill v. Ilitc, 29 C. C. A. 549 (note), and see Second. Employer's Liability Cotes, 223 U. S. 1, at pp. 55 to 50. 6. COMMON LAW OF UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. HUDSON. Reported in 7 Cranch, 32. (1812.) This was a case certified from the circuit court for the district of Connecticuf, in which, upon argument of a general demurrer to an indictment for a libel on the president and congress of the United States, contained in the Connecticut Courant, of the 7th of May, 1806, charging them with having in secret voted $2,000,000 as a present to Bonaparte, for leave to make a treaty with...