The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-10-24
COMMON LAW JURISDICTION.

naturalizations made in the Second Distric
Court is, that that court has "no common La
jurisdiction.
The objection is groundless, and arise
from confusion of ideas as to what is near
by the phrase common law jurisdiction in tn
statute.
| The term common law" has two senses
In one sense it designates the Ter non scriPto
or common usage or customs and judicial de
cisions, which, in England and the Unite
States, have the force OF law. In the othe
sense, it designates all law not included i
what is technically known in other States a
equity" maritime and admiralty jurispru
dence, jurisdiction or procedure. Bow. vol
l, page 472.
! The phrase Common law jurisdiction de
notes the jurisdiction OF courts taking cog
| niZance OF cases which may administer tn
| remedies known as actions at common law
| that is to say, by action of Account, Assump
| sit, Covenant, Debt, Debinue, Replevin
Trespass and Trover Bouvier's Law Doc
vol. l, p. &C, and vol 2, p. 442.
These actions are said to be cat Common
Law They are brought on promises to pay
on contracts to enforce specific perform nee
on open accounts, on rights of specific posses
sion or ownership, on claims for damages
arising from torts, and include nearly all case.
where a specific sum Of money is demanded by
virtue of express contract or tacit obligation
The question, therefore, resolves itself into
this: Has the Second District Court jurisdic
ton of such cases, and can it grant the rene.
dies the parties are entitled to thereon?
The law of Louisiana answers affirmatively.
By article 1924, section II, Of the Code OF
Practice, and 3679 Rays Digest, the court has
jurisdiction "on claims for money brought
against SUGGESTIONS curatOrs, administrators, y
and their "securities." -
Now such suits ''for money" in other States
are brought in courts having common law
Jurisdictions and in the common law FORM
Whether the court is limited to suits for GER
tain amounts or against particular persons,
corporations, or classes of persons, or officers,
has nothing to do with the question; for every
court in the United States is SO limited in one
way or the other. 1t is to the nature of the
actions themselves not to the amount for
which, nor the persons against whom, they
are brought that we must look.
There are hundreds of such suits brought
in the Second District Court every year.
Suits OH promissory notes, on open accounts.
suits on every kind of obligation, and for
damages. This jurisdiction has been enforced
by the Supreme Court in more than hundred
decisions.
True we do not follow in that court the
forms OF procedure observed in the other
States; but the Supreme Court of the United
States have decided that this makes no differ
ence, has nothing to do in distinguishing a
law case from one in equity or in ad-
niralty
1t is the nature of the action not its form
hat is the test. Sd Peters Rep 446, Storv's
Con. ) 1850. Smith Con. $50. Hence, though
Ill onr suits are brought in the same form IRE
'emblng the chancery form Of other States
when they are transferred to tire e. S. Circuit
Court, they are assigned to the common law
y equity side Of the court, according to their
nature If an action Of assumpsit, covenant,
lebt, tort, ETC., can be brought in the common
ase is ASST gned to the common law side or iu-
isdiction of the Circuit Court.
The Supreme Court of the United States
AVE decided that the terms Common Law
q the VII Article OF the Constitution, is used
q contradistinction to equity, admiralty and |
maritime jurisdiction. This was in the case |
f Parsons vs.. Bedford, Sd Pet, referred to |
bove, which involved the difficulty presented |
y the form Of procedure adopted in Louisi-
IA, this very State.
The error of the Attorney General consists
OF only in ignoring these principles, but in
'oking to the law OF Illinois instead of that of
Ouisiana, to find out what is meant in the
constitution and laws Of Louisiana, by spro-
ate jurisdiction In Illinois, as in other
tates Of the Union, snit at common law or
Y common law cause Of action, or of COM
on law jurisdiction, cannot be brought in
rebate Court.
In this State it always could, long before
e present Constitution was adopted; and
e article Of our Constitution according to
ell-known principles Of constitutional inter-
'etatlOn) must be taken and understood in
9 sense known in this State at the time, and
1t be construed by the peculiar statutes and
rlSprudence OF o. her States. Hence in re-
acting the Code Of Practice in 1869, the I
legislature maintained the article comforting
mmon law jurisdiction on the Court of Pro- !
ties, in the cases therein mentioned.
In the other Sta es of the Union when one S
lnts to sue an estate for debt, ETC., he can '
t generally proceed against the administra- c
III probate court, but must bring his
tons in a county, district or circuit court. S
nee the probate courts have not there the l
mmon law jurisdiction they have here. It
therefore, perfectly futile to cite decisions +
questions Of jurisdiction, depending on 4
culiar statutes of other States as being APP !
cable to such questions in Louisiana. The 4
ference in legislation renders these decis-
IS wholly inapplicable. "
Besides, the court in Illinois which it was G
re decided had no jurisdiction to naturalize "
S called Probate or county court, not a I
district Court" 60 nonline, in the terms of l
act Of Congress, and hence it was neces-
y IN that case to resort to the definition G
nd in the Sd section of the act This ne n
sity does not arise when the court is cypress t,
} "District Court by the Statute creating E
for then the doubt cannot exist Thus Z
District Court having equity jurisdiction
Y can naturalize. The definition of the al
section is clearly intended to apply only to a:
RS which do not bear any Of the titles IL
ntioned IN the I'd section Of the act of st
2. A
T. WHARTON CoLLESs. RI
al
HE ARMY AND NAVY HUMmIATED.-The 70
Of the New York Tribune in a.
ent letter from this point truthfully saws: -