*1 Ct. Hornbuckle v. Toombs. case. Statement embarrass mislead nor can neither cáse in this ment adopted and exact books who has true kept manufacturer an honest of account. Judgment afeirmed. v. and modes of the Terri- pleadings, proceeding and forms practice, 1. The jurisdictions, were respective as as their intended torial well lеgislative action of the assemblies Congress to be left to the adopted by courts themselves. might bo regulations and to the which arising things, Congress out of this state of any In difficulties any on has it in its time to establish legislation, expedient as it shall deem well other proper. Wallace, Black, Hughes Orchard (2 (1 2. The cases Noonan v. Lee 499), 610), reconsidered and not Dunphy (11 v. Kleinsmith 77), .Id. approved. Montana; Error the case thus: being seventh to the Constitution ordains: amendment
“ law, where, &e., suits at common of trial In by jury and no fact tried shall be other- preserved; by jury re-examined than to the rules of the wise common according law.” statute of the An United statute com early n as the Act known Process an act 1792,* still
monly force, enаcts: executions, writs, That the forms of and other . . . process, the forms and modes of suits—
“In those common law shall be same as are now in tho said used of the act en- respectively, pursuance titled ‘An act in'the courts of the regulate processes States.’
* Large, 1 Stat. at Oct. 1878.] Hornbückle Toombs.- Statement of ease. “ In those of those оf and maritime equity admiralty fules, jurisdiction, according principles, usages to courts of and to courts of belong admiralty respec- law, courts of common ex- tively, contradistinguished *2 so been far as have for the establish cept may act to provided by of however, courts judicial to subject, such alterations and additions as the said courts respectively shall, discretion, in their deem or to expedient, sueb regulations as the think United States shall proper, rule, time, time to to Circuit or Dis- by prescribe trict Court the same.” concerning
In arid this state of fundamental of law, Con statutory 1864,* on the of “An 26th act May, passed gress, pro vide a for of Montana.” temporary government Territory It enаcted: 6. The ex- of shall legislative power Territory
“Section tend to all of consistent with the rightful subjects legislation Constitution of the United States and the of provisions act. The 9. shall be judicial power Territory
“Section courts, in a district vested and supreme probate' . . The . peace. several justices for, herein both and and provided aрpellate original, . courts, . . shall be limited law. by Provided, probate . That the said and district . . shall supreme respectively, as as common-law chancery jurisdiction. well The 13. Constitution all laws of the United “Section States, which are not locally shall have the inapplicable, force and effect the said within Territory Montana as else- within where the United States.” The its Territory being organized, legislative assembly, “ in December, 1867, a Civil Practice passed Act” contain- these provisions: ing 1. There shall bo in one Territory but form
“Section civil action for the enforcement or protection of private rights the redress or prevention private wrongs.
* 13 Stat. at Large, 88. Ct IIORNBUCKLE TOOMBS. V. Argument plaintiff for error. action, 2. In shall be party complaining
“Section known adverse as the defendant. plaintiff, party 38. on the plaintiff pleadings part
“Section demurrer, be the or to the defend- complaint, replication ant’s on the answer; defend- only pleadings part ant shall be a demurrer to the or demurrer complaint, or an replication, answer to thе complaint. An issue of fact shall be tried unless by jury, Section is waived, ordered, trial or a reference be jury provided this act.” state of an
In this Toombs action brought things against in a Hornbucklo District Court of of a stream of water, for caused the diversion damages his farm was an deprived irrigation, stream, and an his injunction adjudication action was framеd con- further diversion. The with the established in accordance ducted *3 in the last- Territory, provisions legislative assembly above quoted. was found
The case tried who for plaintiff', by jury, that he was dollar, his one ’and decided assessed at damage this verdict inches of water. entitled to Upon seventy awarded an injunction the court judgment, gave prayеd. were based
The errors intermingling assigned in one form of remedies action. equitable legal error in : Leech, Mr. Robert plaintiff in that are erroneous disre they entirely The proceedings between the common-law chancery the distinction gard the Territorial upon conferred by Congress has decided in the act. This court courts, by organic Lee,* hes,† v. v. Kleins Dunphy v. Orchard Hug cases of Noonan and other cases, v. Railroad Thompson Companies,§ mith,‡ thus confused. matters cannot be and equitable legal * Wallace, 1 Black, 77. 499. † 11 Id. 6 Id. 137. § ‡ Oct. 1873.] Toombs-. Hornbu.ckle in error. plaintiff for the Argument here from was Kleinsmith Dunphy brought The of this very Territory Court the Supreme and the in this orgau-ic upon legislation passing : law of Territory, no that the-Territorial legislature
“It is apparent of the Constitution of in contravention law to pass and District or which shall States, deprive common-law as well as the Territory chancery Courts of jurisdiction.” the court was v. Railroad Companies,*
In Thompson equally It said: emphatic. The Constitution United States acts of Con- and establish the distinсtion between law and recognize
gress remedies in the The United States are, equity. in law, or not' equity, common according practice courts, but common principles State law and according and defined that country distinguished equity, our of these ‘And derive knowledge principles. we although forms of State courts practice proceedings been the Circuit Courts of the United adopted have of the State must not be the adoption understood yet of law and confounding equity, nor as author- principles claims to be blended legal equitable one izing together ” suit.’ this court means therefore, its own Unless, disregard iterated and made, reiterated, solemn precedents judg- below must be and decree ment reversed. on obvious rest, too, reason. The precedents does not and common- speak
act chancery *4 otherwise than as distinct law the systems, in force, Act of Process 1792—still undoubtedly contemplat- distinct as and to be the two adminis- systems systems ing and which act is not tered locally inapplicable” separately, the thirteenth- has, the sеction of the to or- Territories — * Wallace, 6 137. 652 Ct. v. Toombs.
Opinion of the court. act “the same force and within effect game Montana as elsewhere in the United States.”
Messrs. Blair and F. A. Montgomery Dick, contra. Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the of the court. opinion errors The are based on the assigned intermingling remedies in one form of equitable aсtion. legal an Such would be objection available in the Circuit and District Courts United States. The Process Act of declared that in 1792* suits expressly equity, those and maritime admiralty those jurisdiction, and modes of forms should be proceeding according aud rules, which principles, usages to courts of belong to courts of equity admiralty contradis- respeсtively, from courts subject of common law, to such tinguished alter- and additions ations said courts should- respectively or to such deem expedient, regulations Court think The should proper prescribe. Supreme Court, in rules of for those prescribing always indicated principle followed Whe- general law. ther the Territorial same subject regula- which is now is the fairly presented. tion question case of Orchard In the of this Hughes† court majority that the Territorial was of courts were opinion cases the' same equity general govern in the Circuit and District Courts. That was of a foreclosure of in the mortgage Nebraska, court, under a Territorial law, court a foreclosure and sale decreеd not only mortgaged decree but gave personal defendant premises, We had decided in deficiency. Noonan v. Lee,‡ rules for the Circuit and prescribed under District a decree could not be made. Courts, majority now rule in the case court applied Orchard was decided it a Territorial although court. Hughes, * Wallace, 1 Large, Blаck, 275. 77. Stat. † ‡ *5 653 Oct. 1873.] v. Toombs. of court. Opinion the decision, we involved that the out principle Following reversed Kleinsmith,* case of Dunphy subsequently, of on the Court Montana, ground judgment filed to in nature of creditor’s bill, the case that (being had which the debtor fraudulently reach conveyed) property whilst the case of therein was a clear equity, proceedings resemblance to there exhibited no equity proceedings, being for and a a trial verdict by jury, damages, judgment the verdict. we are satis- a careful review of the whole not
On view are founded on a correct fied that those decisions the sixth section of act of the law. By with which that of Nebraska sub- Territory “ was that the enacted, it pоwer stantially legislative agreed, extend to all shall subjects legis- Territory rightful with the Constitution of United States consistent lation the ninth section it of this act.” By provisions “ of said shall that judicial was provided in a district vested probate supreme of the and that “the peace,” justices juris- several courts herein both for, provided diction ap- that courts and probate original, pellate law; shall bo limited Provided,” peace, justices and district courts shall supreme respectively that as common-law as well jurisdiction.” chancery possess declares, the Process here is Act Now, nothing declare, that the of common law jurisdictions did of 1792 exercised shall be distinct separately, and chancery is, and modes of proceeding. provision forms both courts named If jurisdictions. that had never been exercised in two other jurisdictions distinct modes there than would be proceeding, way intended them to be supposing ground it is well in that But known that in exercised way. many the two Union jurisdictions, States commingled one form of action. And there is in the nature nоthing
* Wallace, Ct Hornbückle Opinion of the court. Even such a mode of proceeding. things prevent States the Circuit District Courts of a law court is invested with the two jurisdictions, having side; side and an and the enforced separation *6 same two and reference to the remedies, equitable, legal sometimes leads to interest- subject-matter contrоversy, mere to retard the ad- exhibitions of the form ing is difficult to see ministration of In most cases it justice.- an not reason should be en- why equitable any good an in the forced or administered equitable remedy which the are ad- by parties legal rights however, Be as it a consolidation may, judicated. exists in and must two jurisdictions many well considered been known to and be Congress; having in the when the latter act, declares body, organic simply certain Territorial courts shall that both jurisdictions, shall exercised, how be they without prescribing pas- of a code of Territorial assembly by practice sage them in one form of action, unites cannot be deemed re- act. pugnant to clause -in the thirteenth section of the .A act, however, referred which it is declared to,
has been that the Con- by and laws of the United stitution, all States which are not have the same force and effect locally inapplicable, of Montana as within the elsewhere in Territory States;” and it is virtue argued this all enactment, judicial regulations respecting proceedings contained in acts of which are are im- Congress, of the Territorial into the courts. But this ported Laws is not tenable. the proceed- proposition regulating courts are of States of the United specific application, ings fact, in truth are, and to the locally inapplicable is a There a law óf this Territory. court authorizing sеnse In one this law is not reporter. to appoint locally but in Territory; inapplicable law it is sense so. specific just application and cannot applied court true, an misconstruction without evident meaning Oct 1878.]
Opinion of the court. and intent of in the thirteenth sec- clause of the Congress effect, tion referred to. That has the un- аbove clause the laws into doubtedly, passed importing offences prevent punish char- revenue, mail and other of a service, laws general acter universal but not those application; specific application. in the
The acts of Congress respecting proceedings with, United States courts concerned and cоnfined to, those considered the Federal parts system, with the invested of the United States judicial power conferred and to Constitution, be exercised expressly correlation with presence were not in- several State courts They governments. as exertions of that municipal tended authority plenary has over the District of Columbia which Cоngress do contain a Territories of the United States. not They *7 intent. The fact that re- they indicate such word to any and District Courts to follow the the Circuit quire in law, cases at and that State of the respective they in that cases, rule such shows cannot no other they supply As these said, before acts to the Territorial courts. apply the courts of the United States, to have specific application and of a character jurisdiction. are courts peculiar a to proceeded organize govern- Whenever Congress it has instituted Territories, merely ment for of any committed to the therefor, aud of courts system has. general full few subject power, specified Territоrial assembly all details of conditions, of legislation or supplying implied into even to the de- operation, put system necessary the several courts. As of jurisdiction gene- fining scheme of local to the ral general government thing, and such act, out special provisions chalked organic by'the the local has beeu in- therein, contained as are legislature enactment of the entire of munici- with the system trusted also, however, law, subject Congress pal revoke its alter, aud discretion. thus revise, powers Territorial as exteu- legislatures nearly exercised by v. Ct of the court. Opinion sive as those exercised State any by legislature; courts is coexten- jurisdiction collectively sive with to that of the State and courts —a correspondent that exercised different the Circuit very jurisdiction by fine, Courts of the United States. In District Terri- are invested with torial, like the State mu- plenary nicipal jurisdiction.
It is that the Courts of are, true District with the same invested all act, jurisdiction, cases under the and laws of the Constitution United arising District States, as is vested thе Circuit and Courts of the States; and a each term is United directed to be portion causes under to the trial of the said- appropriated arising in this ca- Whether, Constitution when laws.- acting the said courts are to be pacity, governed the Circuit and District Courts affecting A class of is not States, now question. large not, cases of the latter courts would jurisdiction within courts; come in the Territorial clause, under this namely, depends.on citizenship those which under the Cases parties. arising Constitution States would composed laws the United mostly cases, patent, bankruptcy prosecu- revenue, admiralty, tions for crimes the United prosecutions laws to civil infractions of the relating and suits for rights fifteenth amendments. To avoid under the fourteenth as to the modes and controversy question settled law, where not addi- cases, already perhaps would be desirable. tional legislation entire a review the past From legislation consideration, is, conclusion under our on the subject *8 and forms and modes of pleadings, practice, proceеding as well as their respective of the Territorial juris- to a said, as before or dictions, few-express implied subject, th¿ intended itself, act were to be left conditions in action the Territorial and to assemblies, -legislative which the courts them- be adopted might regulations difficulties case out course, Of in any arising selves. Oct. 1873.J Hershfield Griffith. case.
Statement it in its any state of things, as on on as well establish time to it shall deem expedient other legislation, (cid:127)proper.' is
The judgment
Affirmed. dissent Ve CLIFFORD, STRONG, JJ.: DAVIS, court in for the that this this case reason from judgment claims times decided that claims at law and has several be even in cannot united in one aetion equity And we if a is think, made, the rule courts. change that it should be made by Congrеss.
Hershfield v. Griffith. affirmed, having the case here preceding been a mortgage. obtain satisfaction of a Appeal Supreme Mon- tana. Starr sued in one of the District
Griffith Territorial courts on a on certain the suit mortgage property; under the Civil Practice brought Act, being quoted case; an act under circumstances preceding passed there forth, set and which it is for the reader to necessary inof order to understand himself at all this case. One intervened, that he Hershfield had a asserting mortgage date sued on property, prior by Griffith. The court favor of gave Griffith, judgment and'Hersh- the case to the field took Court of the Territory, affirmed the below. Hershfield now judgment brought here the case appeal, other errors the assigning among and common-law blending jurisdiction. VOL. XVIII.