United States v. Peters (1795)

Last updated
United States v. Peters
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued August 22, 1795
Full case nameThe United States v. Richard Peters, District Judge
Citations3 U.S. 121 ( more )
3 Dall. 121; 1 L. Ed. 535; 1795 U.S. LEXIS 330
Holding
The Supreme Court can compel a federal trial judge to halt proceedings in a case which the Supreme Court feels is lacking sufficient evidence to proceed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Rutledge
Associate Justices
James Wilson  · William Cushing
John Blair Jr.  · James Iredell
William Paterson
Case opinion
MajorityRutledge, joined by unanimous

United States v. Peters, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 121 (1795), was a United States Supreme Court case determining that the federal district court has no jurisdiction over a foreign privateer where the intended captured ship was not within the jurisdiction of the court. The Supreme Court may prohibit the district court from proceeding in such a matter. In the decision the court held:

Contents

The district court has no jurisdiction of a libel for damages, against a privateer, commissioned by a foreign belligerent power, for the capture of an American vessel as prize—the captured vessel not being within the jurisdiction.

The supreme court will grant a writ of prohibition to a district judge, when he is proceeding in a cause of which the district court has no jurisdiction. [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), is considered the first United States Supreme Court case of significance and impact. Since the case was argued prior to the formal pronouncement of judicial review by Marbury v. Madison (1803), there was little available legal precedent. The Court in a 4–1 decision ruled in favor of Alexander Chisholm, executor of an estate of a citizen of South Carolina, holding that Article III, Section 2 grants federal courts jurisdiction in cases between a state and a citizen of another state wherein the state is the defendant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Reports, volume 2</span>

This is a list of cases reported in volume 2 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States from 1791 to 1793. Case reports from other federal and state tribunals also appear in 2 U.S..

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Reports, volume 3</span>

This is a list of cases reported in volume 3 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States from 1794 to 1799. Case reports from other tribunals also appear in 3 U.S..

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Reports, volume 4</span>

This is a list of cases reported in volume 4 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1799 and 1800. Case reports from other tribunals also appear in 4 U.S..

United States v. Schooner Sally, 6 U.S. 406 (1805), was an 1805 decision of the United States Supreme Court which found that the question of forfeiture of a vessel is of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, not of common law.

United States v. Lawrence, 3 U.S. 42 (1795), was a United States Supreme Court case determining that the Supreme Court cannot normally compel a federal trial judge to proceed in a case which he feels is lacking sufficient evidence to proceed. In the case, the court held:

Where a judge of the district court, acting in his judicial capacity, determined that evidence was not sufficient to authorize him to proceed in a case before him, this Court has no power to compel him to decide according to the dictates of any judgment but his own, whatever might be the difference of sentiment entertained by the court.

A motion was made by the Attorney General of the United States (Bradford) for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not be directed to John Lawrence, Judge of the District of New York, in order to compel him to issue a warrant, for apprehending Captain Barre, commander of the frigate Le Perdrix, belonging to the French Republic.

United States v. Hamilton, 3 U.S. 17 (1795), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a defendant committed on a charge of treason was released on bail, despite having been imprisoned upon a warrant of committal by a district court judge. The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that "upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death, in which cases it shall not be admitted but by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and the usages of law." Ordinarily, habeas corpus was used to release prisoners held by the judgment of the executive, but not for those whose commitment had been authorized by a court order. Hamilton's attorney argued that the district court judge did not hold a hearing before issuing a warrant for his commitment to jail and that the affidavits alleging treasonous activity were weak, while the government urged that the Judiciary Act did not give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to review the district court's decision unless there was new information or misconduct. The Supreme Court set bail, but without addressing either attorney's arguments.

United States v. La Vengeance, 3 U.S. 297 (1796), was a 1796 decision of the United States Supreme Court which found that a proceeding by the United States to forfeit a vessel is a cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Specifically, "[a]n injunction to enforce the forfeiture of a vessel, for an illegal exportation of arms and ammunition, is a civil cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The courts will take judicial notice of a geographical fact."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Marshall Court</span>

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year. Among such cases are United States v. Simms (1803), United States v. More (1805), Ex parte Bollman (1807), United States v. Hudson (1812), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), United States v. Perez (1824), Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and United States v. Wilson (1833).

United States v. Peters is the short case name of two United States Supreme Court decisions, both involving Richard Peters in his role as a United States district judge.

The former Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture, established by resolution of the Continental Congress on January 15, 1780, was the first federal court in the United States of America. The court had jurisdiction over cases for the capture of enemy ships and cargo.

References

  1. Reports of cases ruled and adjudged in the several courts of the United States, and of Pennsylvania: held at the seat of the federal government, Volume 3, Banks Law Pub. Co., 1905, pg. 120