Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/65/147.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:40:57+00:00

Document:
[65 U.S. 147, 148] THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the District Court of the United States for the western district of Texas.
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY: To give the court jurisdiction of this case, it is necessary that the plaintiffs should be non-residents, or citizens of the State of Texas. The petition alleges that two of the plaintiffs, viz: Mrs. Eberly and Peyton Lytle, are citizens of the State of Kentucky. This allegation is denied by the plea in abatement, which avers them to be citizens of the State of Texas. Upon this issue arises the question of fact which you are to determine.
T. H. DUVAL, U. S. Dist, Judge.
The defendants ask the court to charge, that if Texas was the natural domicil of Peyton Lytle, that is, the domicil of his birth, and if it remained so until the death of his parents, then it was not in the power of the grandmother to change his domicil by carrying him to Kentucky, and thus to confer upon him that citizenship which would give this court jurisdiction.
JNO. A. & R. GREEN, For Def'ts.
The above instruction is given.
T. H. DUVAL, U. S. Dist. Judge.
The counsel for the plaintiffs took an exception to the judgment of the court, granting permission to the defendants to withdraw their plea first filed and file one in abatement; and afterwards moved the court for judgment by default to be entered against the defendants, for want of a defence or answer; which motion being overruled by the court, the plaintiffs excepted. The jury then found that the residence of the plaintiffs was in Texas, and the court dismissed the suit.
The case was argued by Mr. Hale for the plaintiffs in error, and submitted on a printed argument by Mr. Ballinger for the defendant. [65 U.S. 147, 150] That part only of the argument of Mr. Hale which related to the power of the court to grant leave to the defendants to withdraw their first plea and plead in abatement can be inserted.
Ordinary questions of amendment are intrusted to the discretion of the inferior courts, and are not revisable here; but in a case of this character, the courts of law have no discretion. The 32nd section of the act of 1789, (1 Stat. at L., 91,) applies, in its first clause, to the correction of formal defects or errors by a reference to other parts of the record; and in its last and more general clause, to an amendment of 'any defect in the process or pleadings.' It is obvious that this statute grants only the power of correcting an error occurring in the body of a pleading, and is not to be understood as authorizing the cancellation or withdrawal of the pleading itself. In the latter case there would be no 'defect' to be supplied, as there would be nothing left in which to supply it. The power, then, to allow the withdrawal of an entire plea and the substitution of another, must be derived, if at all, from the common law, or the general and necessary authority of a court in ordinationem litis. But this general authority cannot extend to the case of amendments, because then there would have been no need of the enabling statutes. And at common law, the courts had at first no power of admitting amendments after the term.
Blackmore's case, 6 Co. R., 157.
Com. Dig. Prerogative, D., 85.
Nelson v. Barker, 3 McLean, 379.
Bondfield v. Milner, 2 Burr., 1099.
The expression 'in paper' appears to be strictly applied to the condition of a cause before the impannelling of a jury; but the decisions are conflicting as to the power of granting an amendment in a material point, (except to correct a variance,) [65 U.S. 147, 151] after issue is taken. It is clear that an omission cannot, in the English courts, be supplied after that time.
Bye v. Bower, Carr and M., 262.
John v. Currie, 6 Carr and P., 618.
Brashear v. Jackson, 6 Mees. and W., 549.
Webb v. Hill, Mood and M., 253.
But there have been instances where a demurrer or replication was allowed to be withdrawn and a new pleading substituted. In these cases, however, it is to be noticed that the object has been to speed the cause. There is no precedent for the withdrawal of a plea in bar, to admit either a demurrer or a plea in abatement. On the contrary, it is well settled that a plea, introduced by amendment, must be to the merits of the case.
Law v. Law, Str., 960.
Perkins v. Burbank, 2 Mass., 73.
Eaton v. Whittaker, 6 Pick., 465.
Beach v. Fulton Bank, 3 Wend., 573, 576.
Waples v. McGee, 2 Harring, 444.
See, also, D'Wolf v. Rabaud, 1 Pet., 585.
Ripley v. Warren, 2 Pick., 592, 594-596.
Palmer v. Everson, 2 Cow., 417.
Engle v. Nelson, 1 Penns., 442.
There seem to be two rules on this subject; first, that an amendment will not, in general, be allowed, unless there is something in the record by which or on which to amend; and second, in the rare cases in which an entire new plea is permitted, it must be of a character subsequent in the natural order of pleading to the one withdrawn.
Judicial discretion can only be exercised where neither party has a legal right. When rights are involved, discretion ends, and any decision becomes the subject of appellate revision. In the present case, the defendants in error, by pleading in bar at a former term, had admitted the jurisdiction of the court and waived any objection to it.
Co. Litt., 303. Com. Dig. Abatement, D., 9, 5. Mostyn v. Fabrigas, Cowp., 161. [65 U.S. 147, 152] Bailey v. Dozier, 6 How., 23, 30.
Sheppard v. Graves, 14 How., 505, 509.
Whyte v. Gibbes et al., 20 How., 579, 585.
Martin v. Commonw., 1 Mass., 347.
Ripley v. Warren, 2 Pick., 592, 594.
Coffin v. Jones, 5 Pick., 61.
Ludlow v. Simond, 2 Caines Ca., 40.
Wood v. Mann, 1 Sumn., 578.
Hinckley v. Smith, 4 Watts, 433.
Chamberlain v. Hite, 5 Watts, 373.
And it is so expressly decided in Texas, Hart. Dig., art. 688, 691.
Drake v. Brander, 8 Texas, 351.
Cook v. Southwick, 9 Tex., 615.
Ryan v. Jackson, 11 Tex., 391, 400.
Wilson v. Adams, 15 Tex., 323. Compton v. Western Stage Co., Mass. opinion.
See, also, Smith v. Elder, 3 Johns. R., 113.
Cases are not wanting, also, in which the power of a court to permit a plea to the jurisdiction, after such a constructive admission, has been expressly denied. Thus in Martin v. Commonw., 1 Mass., 353-60, the Attorney General asked [65 U.S. 147, 153] leave to plead in abatement after an imparlance in error; and objection being made by Parsons, counsel for plaintiff in error, the court unanimously refused to permit it, because the plea in abatement was offered after a plea in bar had been filed, which admitted the capacity of the plaintiff in error. In a similar case in New York, where it was shown that the general issue had been pleaded without the knowledge of the defendant, the court still refused to allow it to be withdrawn to let in a plea of coverture.
Anonymous, 3 Caines R., 102.
So permission to plead in abatement will be refused, after imparlance, though the prayer for imparlance was by mistake or through ignorance.
Com. Dig. Abatement, D., 9, 2.
The subject is elaborately discussed in Wood v. Mann, 1 Sumn., 578. And the principle is substantially affirmed by the Supreme Court of Texas in Coles v. Perry, 7 Texas, 109, 141.
That part only of Mr. Ballinger's argument which relates to the general rules of pleading can be given, omitting the references to the Texas decisions.
II. The court below had the right to permit the answer to the merits to be withdrawn and abandoned, and a plea to the jurisdiction filed; and this court will not revise the discretion which was exercised.
2 Sumner, 585; 11 Pet., 393; 14 How., 509.
See Wallace v. Clark, (3 Woodb. and M., 359,) a case standing on very analagous ground.
The Constitution of the United States provides that 'the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising,' &c. By 'cases in law' was meant suits in which legal rights are to be determined, in contradistinction to rights cognizable in equity or admiralty.
Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet., 44.
Bennett v. Butterworth, 11 How., 647-5.
There is no common law of the United States regulating principles of pleading and practice at law, or upon any other subject, (Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet., 658;) nor do the laws of a State have any such effect, proprio vigore.
9 Pet., 329; 2 Curt. C. C., 94. [65 U.S. 147, 155] The Supreme Court of the United States has the power to prescribe rules of pleading and practice, in suits at common law, for the District and Circuit Courts, (act Aug. 23, 1842, sec. 6, 5 Stats., 517;) but it is a power which has never been exercised. The District Court in Texas has also the power to regulate its practice, 'as shall be fit and necessary for the advancement of justice,' &c., (act March 2, 1793, sec. 7, 1 Stats., 385;) and in the entire want of all other rules, it adopted its own rules of pleading and practice, conforming them to the practice of the State courts, so far as consistent with the laws of Congress and the distinctive organization of a court of law. One of the few provisions, by act of Congress, touching the pleadings in the courts of the United States, is, that those courts may at any time permit either of the parties to amend any defect in the process or pleadings upon such conditions as the said courts respectively shall in their discretion and by their rules prescribe.
32d sec. Judiciary Act, 1789, 1 Stats., 91.
O. & W. Dig., art. 434.
Chirac v. Reinecker, 11 Wheat., 280.
Walden v. Craig, 9 Wheat., 573.
Wright v. Hollingsworth, 1 Pet., 165.
United States v. Buford, 3 Id., 31.
Clapp v. Balch, 3 Greenl., 219.
Morgan & Smith v. Dyer, 10 Johns., 163.
Northum v. Kellogg, 15 Conn., 574.
Toby v. Claflin, 3 Sum., 380.
Calloway v. Dobson, 1 Brock, 119.
Riddle et al. v. Stevenus, 2 Serg. and R., 544.
The plaintiffs, as citizens of Kentucky, commenced a suit by petition against the defendants, as citizens of Texas, for the recovery of a parcel of land in their possession. At the return of the process the defendants pleaded to the petition the general issue, and the statute of limitations, in bar of the suit.
At the next succeeding term they moved the court, upon an affidavit charging that the allegation in the petition, 'that the plaintiffs were citizens of Kentucky, was untrue, and fraudulently made to induce the court to take cognizance of the cause,' and that they were citizens of Texas, for leave to withdraw their pleas, and to plead this matter in abatement of the suit. This motion was allowed, and pleas in abatement were filed. One of these avers that the allegation of citizenship in said plaintiffs' petition is not true; that said plaintiffs are not citizens of Kentucky, but are respectively citizens of Texas; wherefore he prays the dismissal of the cause for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs thereupon moved the court for judgment for the want of a plea. This motion was not allowed, and thereupon the plaintiffs refused to reply to the pleas in abatement, and the court then proceeded to impannel a jury, and directed them to ascertain whether, from the proof before them, the plaintiffs, or either of them, were citizens of the States of Kentucky or Texas at the date of the writ. The jury returned as their verdict, that the domicil or residence of the plaintiffs never had been changed from the State of Texas, and that their domicil or residence was in the State of Texas at the commencement of this suit. The court dismissed their petition. [65 U.S. 147, 158] The plaintiffs object to the authority of the District Court to permit the withdrawal of pleas in bar, for the purpose of pleading to the jurisdiction; that a plea in bar admits the jurisdiction of the court, and the capacity of the plaintiffs to sue, and that they cannot be deprived of the benefit of that admission. The equitable jurisdiction of the courts of the United States as courts of law is chiefly exercised in the amendment of pleadings and proceedings in the court, and in the supervision of all the various steps in a cause, so that the rules and practice of the court shall be so administered and enforced as to prevent hardship and injustice, and that the merits of the cause may be fairly tried. Such a jurisdiction is essential to and is inherent in the organization of courts of justice. Bartholomew v. Carter, 2 M. and G., 125.
But this jurisdiction has been conferred upon the courts of the United States in a plenary form by acts of Congress. 1 Stat. at Large, p. 83, sec. 17; p. 335, sec. 7; p. 91, sec. 32.
It has been uniformly held in this court that a Circuit Court could not be controlled in the exercise of the discretion thus conceded to it. Spencer v. Lapsley, 20 How., 264. In the present instance the jurisdiction was properly exercised. An attempt was made, according to the affidavit on which the motion was founded, to confer upon the District Court, by a false and fraudulent averment, a jurisdiction to which it was not entitled under the Constitution. If true, this was a gross contempt of the court, for which all persons connected with it might have been subject to its penal jurisdiction.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 688
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 434
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.