Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/85322/ex-parte-lothrop
Timestamp: 2018-02-26 02:09:01
Document Index: 671899669

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1908', '§ 1908', '§ 2', '§ 9', '§ 6', '§ 1886']

Ex Parte Lothrop - Citation 85322 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Ex Parte Lothrop - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/85322
Case Number 118 U.S. 113
Appellant Ex Parte Lothrop
.....for, and said court shall have the power of naturalization, and to issue papers therefor. said county courts shall have appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising in justices and other inferior courts in said cochise county in the same manner and to the same extent as is now allowed by law on appeals from such courts to the district courts. the said county court of cochise county shall be always open, legal holidays and nonjudicial days excepted, and its process shall extend to all parts of the territory, provided that all actions for the recovery of the possession of, quieting the title to, or for the enforcement of liens upon real estate shall be commenced in the county in which the real estate or any part thereof affected by such action or actions, is situated. said county.....
Ex Parte Lothrop - 118 U.S. 113 (1886)
U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Lothrop, 118 U.S. 113 (1886)
This was a petition to this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
The precise question for determination is whether such a court, with such a jurisdiction, is an "inferior court" within the meaning of § 1908. It has "equal concurrent common law, equitable, and statutory jurisdiction with the district courts in all cases," and "original concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts . . . in all criminal cases amounting to felony, and cases of misdemeanor not otherwise provided for." It is
therefore a court of substantially equal dignity and importance with the district court so far as Cochise County is concerned, but it is "inferior" to the supreme court, because that court has power to review its judgments and decrees on appeal. As every territory is, by the Revised Statutes, to be divided into districts and a district court is to be held in each district, § 1908 must be so construed as not to exclude district courts in Arizona Territory. Still, as district courts are neither named nor specifically referred to in the section, it does not necessarily follow that the "inferior courts" provided for must be courts inferior to them. For some reason, Congress saw fit, in establishing the territorial government of Arizona, to depart from its usual habit of specifying the courts in which the judicial power should be vested, and to provide that it should be vested there "in a supreme court, to consist of three judges, and such inferior courts as the legislative council may by law prescribe." Chapter 56, § 2, 12 Stat. 665. In all the other territories then existing, it had been vested "in a supreme court, district courts, probate courts, and in justices of the peace." This practice began with the act establishing the territorial government of Wisconsin, April 20, 1836, 5 Stat. 10, c. 54, § 9, and it was followed in all the territorial organic acts passed afterwards except in those for Arizona and Alaska. In Arizona, the provision as to the vesting of judicial power was more like that in the Organic Act of Florida, March 30, 1822, 3 Stat. 654, c. 13, § 6, where it was placed "in two superior courts, and in such inferior courts and justices of the peace as the legislative council of the territory may from time to time establish." This, it was held in American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, gave the legislative council authority to establish courts of concurrent jurisdiction with the superior courts except in respect to capital offenses, as to which, by the organic act, the jurisdiction of the superior courts had been made exclusive. The language of Chief Justice Marshall is, p. 26 U. S. 544 :
This is, as it seems to us, equally applicable to the present case. The legislative power of the territory extends to "all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." This includes the establishment of "inferior courts" -- that is to say, courts inferior to the supreme court. District courts have been established by Congress, but Congress has not defined their jurisdiction further than to provide generally that they shall have chancery as well as common law jurisdiction. According to § 1886, the jurisdiction of all the courts is to be such as shall be limited by law. There is no restraint on the legislative power of this territory as to the grant of jurisdiction to the inferior courts, except by implication that it shall be such as properly belongs to a court inferior to the supreme court. In Ferris v. Higley, 20 Wall. 383, it was held in respect to a territory where the judicial power was vested in a supreme court, district courts, probate courts, and justices of the peace, that the probate courts could not be vested by the territorial legislature with the powers of courts of general jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, because that would be inconsistent with the nature and purpose of a probate court as authorized by that act and inconsistent with the clause which conferred on the supreme court and district courts general jurisdiction in chancery as well as at law. But here, there is nothing of the kind. All that is required, according to the doctrine of American Ins. Co. v. Canter, is that the court shall be inferior to the supreme court. Its jurisdiction may be made concurrent with that of every other court which is alike inferior to the supreme court. Section 1869 provides for appeals and writs of error from the district courts to the supreme court, but this is not at all inconsistent with authority in the Legislature of Arizona to allow like appeals and writs of error from any other inferior court it may establish. District courts are now established in all the territories, but it is, to say the least, doubtful whether that was done by Congress in Arizona prior to the adoption of the Revised Statutes. As has already been seen, the original