The Washington union., 1857-05-26


for that district to assert the title Of himself and
his family to freedom.
The declaration is in the form usually adopted in that
State to try questions of this description, and contains
the ayernent necessary TO give the court Jurisdiction
that he and the defendant citizens Of different States
that is that he is citizen of Missouri and the defend
ant citizen of New York
The defendant pleaded in abatement to the jursdic-
ton of the court that the plaintiff not citizen of the
State Of Missouri alleged in his declaration, being
negro of African descent, whose ancestors of pure
African blood, and who brought into this country
and sold slaves.
To this plea the plaintiff demured and the defendant
joined in demurrer The court ovenued the plea, and
gave judgment that the defendant should answer
And he hereupon put in sudy pleas in bar upon which
issues joined and at the trial the verdict and ud
ment in his favor Whereupon the plaintiff brought
this writ of sfor
Before speak of the pleas IN bar it will be proper
dispose of the questions which have arisen the plea in
abatement
That plea denies the right of the plaintiff to
in court of the United States for the therein
stated
the question raised by it is legally before us and the
court should be Of opinion that the facts stated in it dis
qualify the plaintiff from becoming citizen in the sense
in which that word is used in the constitution of the Uni
ted States then the judgment of the circuit court is
neous, and must be reversed
1t is suggested however that this plea is not before
and that the Judgment in the court below on this
plea in favor of the plaintiff he does not seek to
it, bring before the court for revision by his
writ of and also that the defendant waived this
defence by pleading over and thereby admitted the urs
dicon of the court
But In making this objection, we think the peculiar
and limited jurisdiction Of courts of the United States has
not been adverted to- This peculiar and limited uris
dicon has made il necessary in these courts to adopt
different rules and principles OF pleading so far as urs
dicon is concerned from those which regulate courts of
common law in England and in the different States of
the Union which have adopted the common-law rules.
In these aforementioned courts, where their character
and rank analogous TO that of circuit court of the
in ylc tbeya yvln
law terms courts of general jurisdiction, they pre-
sumed to have jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears
No averment in the peadngs of the plaintiff is necessary
in order to give jurisdiction If the defendant objects to
it, he must plead it specially and unless the fact
which he relies is found to be true by jury admitted
to be true by the plaintiff the jurisdiction cannot be dis
puted in an appellate court
Now, it is not necessary to inquire whether in courts
of that description party who pleads in bar when
plea to the jurisdiction has been ruled against him. does
OF does not waive his plea nor whether upon judg
mcn in his favor the pleas in BAR and writ Of
brought by the plaintiff the question upon the plea in
abatement would be open for revision in the appellate
Cases that may have been decided in such courts
rules that may have been laid down by common-law
plcadcrs, have influence in the decision in this
court Because under the constitution and laws of the
United States the rules which govern the pleadngs in its
courts in questions of jurisdiction stand different prn
ciples and are regulated by different laws.
This difference arises, have said from the pecu
liar character of the government of the United States
for although is sovereign and supreme its appropriate
which usually belong to the sovereignty of nation.
Certain specified powers, enumerated in the constitution
have been conferred uponit and neither the legislative
executive, judicial departments of the government
lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits
marked out by the constitution And in regulating
the judicial department. the IN which the courts
of the United States shall have jurisdiction are partic
ularly and specifically enumerated and defined and
they are not authorized to take cogniancc of any
which does not within the description there
in specified Hence, when plaintiff in court
OF the United States it is necessary that he should
show, in his pleading that the suit he brings is within
the jurisdiction of the court and that he entitled to sue
there And if he omits to do this, and should by any
oversight of the circuit court obtain Judgment in his
favor the judgment would be reversed in the appellate
court for want Of jurisdiction in the court below The
jurisdiction would not be presumed In the of
common-law English State court unless the contrary
appeared But the record when it comes before the APP
peate court, must show, atrmatvey, that the inferior
court had authority under the constitution hear and
determine the And if the plaintiff claims right to
in circuit court OF the United States under that pro-
vision of the constitution which gives jurisdiction con-
royerses between citizens of different States, he dis
ncty aver in his pleading that they citizens of differ
cnt States; and he cannot maintain his suit without
showing that fact in the pleadngs.
This point decided in the of Bingham Cabot
fn DALI 1882 and ever since adhered to by the court
And in jackson Ashton, Is Pet 1857 it held that
the objection to which it open could not be waived
by the opposite party because Of parties could
give jurisdiction.
1t is needless to accumulate this subject Those
already referred to- and the cases Capron u.s. Van Moor
den, in Cr, 1863 and Montalet Murray, Cr., 46)
sufficient to show the rule of which have spoken
The of Caron Van Noorden stingy illustrates
the difference between common-law court and court
of the United States.
If however, the fact of citizenship is averred in the
declaration and the defendant does not deny it. and put
it in issue by plea in Abatement he cannot offer evidence
at the trial TO dsproye it, and consequently cannot avail
himself of the objection in the appellate court unless the
defect should be apparent in other part the record
for if there plea in abatement and the of u
rsdcton does not appear in any other part Of the tran
script brought up by the writ of error the undsputed
averment Of citizenship in the declaration be taken
in this court to lie true In this case the citizenship is
avcred but is denied by the defendant in the manner
required by the rules of pleading, and the fact upon
which the denial is based is admitted by the demurrer
and if the plea and demurrer and Judgment of the court
below upon it before upon this record the question
to be decided is whether the facts stated in the plea are
sufficient to show that the plaintiff is not entitled sue
ms citizen in court of the United States.
We think they before us. The plea in abatement
and the judgment of the court upon it, part of the
judicial proceedings in the circuit court are there re-
corded such; and writ of always brings up to
the superior court the whole record of the proceedings in
the court below. And in the of the United States
smith, III Wheat 1929 this court said that the case
being brought up by writ of error the whole record was
under the consideration of this court. And this being
the in the present instance the plea in abatement is
necessarily under considerations and it becomes there
FORE duty to decide whether the facts stated in the
plea not sufficient to show that the plaintiff
is not entitled to citizen in court Of the United
States.
This is certainly very serious question: and that