| 
Respect to the Common Law, and in Respect to Parties
1. 2 Dallas, 384.
2. Opinion delivered September 3d, 1807, and reported by Mr. Ritchie.
3. 7 Cranch, 32.
4. In the states of Ohio and Louisiana, it is understood to be held that there is no common law indictable offense, and that every indictable offense must be grounded upon some statute.
5. 1 Gallison 488.
6. Judge Wilson, in his charge to a grand jury in the Circuit Court of the United States, in Virginia, in 1791, observed, that we must recur to the common law for the definition and description of many crimes against the United States. See Wilson's Works, vol. 3, 371-377.
7. 1 Wheaton, 415.
8. Cui jurisdictio data est, ea quoque concessa esse videntur, sine quibus jurisdictio explicari non potest. Dig. 2. 1, 2.
9. 3 Wheaton, 212. 10. Ibid. 159.
10. Sec. 34.
11. The practice of the Supreme Courts of the states in use in September 1789, was adopted, subject to alterations by the federal courts. 1 Paine, 428, 429. 10 Wheaton, 1. The federal courts follow the decisions of the state courts on the construction of state laws, unless they come in conflict with the constitution or laws of the United States. 10 Wheaton, 159. 1 Paine, 564.
12. Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem. Inst. 1, 2. 6.
13. Declaration of rights of 14th October, 1774. Journals of Congress, vol. 1. p. 28.
14. Du Ponceau on jurisdiction, p. 91.
15. 3 Dallas, 382.
16. 4 Dallas, 7.
17. 4. Dallas, 8.
18. 4 Dallas, 12.
19. 4 Dallas, 22. The omission of the above averments, or any other requisite to give jurisdiction, is matter of substance. and not cured by verdict, nor amendable after verdict. 1 Paine, 486, 594.
20. 4 Cranch, 46.
21. 5 Cranch, 303.
22. 6 Wheaton, 450.
23. 4 Dallas, 330.
24. 1 Cranch. 343.
25. 3 Cranch, 267.
26. But the Circuit Court of the United States is not deprived of its jurisdiction arising from the character of the party, by joining with an alien or citizen of another state, a mere nominal party, who does not possess the requisite character. 5 Cranch, 303. 8 Wheaton, 451. 1 Paine, 410. And if a citizen of one state establishes his domicile in another, it is sufficient to enable him to sue in the federal courts. Even if he removes from one state to another with the avowed object to acquire a capacity to sue in the federal courts, it is not deemed a fraud upon the law, provided he removes with the intention to establish his permanent residence. Catlett v. Pacific Ins. Co. 1 Paine, 594.
27. 5 Cranch, 57, 61.
28. In Breithaupt v. The Bank of Georgia, 1 Peters' Rep 238. it was there held that a bill to give jurisdiction must state that the stockholders were citizens of Georgia.
29. Act of Congress, April 10, 1816. sec. 7.
30. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheaton 738. United States Bank v. Planter's Bank, 9 Wheaton 901.
31. Chappedelaine v. Decheneux, 4 Cranch, 306. 308. Browne v. Strode, 5 Cranch, 303. See also 5 Cranch, 91, and Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheaten, 642.
32. Sere v.Pilot, 6 Cranch, 332.
33. Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445. Corporation of New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheaton, 91.
34. Morgan v. Morgan, 2 Wheaten, 290.
35. Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheaton, 146. Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheaton, 537.
36. 9 Wheaton, 738.
37. 9 Wheaton 904.