forced. In Re Neagle 60 it was neither signed nor sworn to by the applicant, but by some one in his behalf; and so, too, in Re Baez.61

The applicant must set out the facts clearly, and show wherein a federal question is involved. Mere general allegations of such are not sufficient, and there is an express requirement that the claim under which the applicant is detained must be set out, if known; which means that copies of the proceedings attacked must be set out, or their essential parts stated in the application.62

Rule to Show Cause

The court, instead of issuing the writ in the first instance, may, if it thinks proper, first issue a rule to show cause why the writ should not issue.68

Will Not Issue if Petition Shows Applicant Not Entitled Thereto

Under section 755 of the Revised Statutes 64 the court may issue the writ, unless it appears from the petition itself that the party is not entitled thereto. Under this clause of the statute it has been held that the writ will not issue when it appears upon the face of the petition that the prisoner is not entitled to it, or that it can serve no beneficial purpose to the applicant.

In Ex parte Terry 5 the application showed upon its face that the party had been committed for contempt, and

60 135 U. S. 1, 10 Sup. Ct. 658, 35 L. Ed. 55. See "Habeas Corpus," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 53, 57; Cent. Dig. §§ 50-54.

61 177 U. S. 378, 20 Sup. Ct. 673, 44 L. Ed. 813. See, also, U. S. v. Watchorn (C. C.) 164 Fed. 152. See "Habeas Corpus," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 53-57; Cent. Dig. §§ 50-54.

62 Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U. S. 293, 16 Sup. Ct. 304, 40 L. Ed. 432; Andersen v. Treat, 172 U. S. 24, 19 Sup. Ct. 67, 43 L. Ed. 351; Craemer v. Washington, 168 U. S. 124, 18 Sup. Ct. 1, 42 L. Ed. 407. See "Habeas Corpus," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 54; Cent. Dig. § 51.

63 In re Lewis (C. C.) 114 Fed. 963. See "Habeas Corpus," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 58.

64 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 593.

65 128 U. S. 289, 9 Sup. Ct. 77, 32 L. Ed. 405. See "Habeas Cor pus," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 92; Cent. Dig. §§ 87-96.

that the court had authority to make the committal. So it was refused.

66

In Re Boardman 6 no federal question appeared upon the petition, and, as it was evident that the prisoner would be remanded if the writ issued, the court refused to issue it in the first instance.

In Re Baez 67 the applicant had been sentenced for illegally voting in Puerto Rico, but it appeared that his sentence had been for only thirty days, that most of it had expired when the writ was asked, and that the balance would expire before the court, in the nature of things, could consider the writ. Hence it was refused as involving a mere moot question.

68

The return is taken to be true until it is disproved," and, where the writ is being used to attack collateral proceedings in another court, the applicant cannot contradict the record whose validity he is questioning.

On the other hand, he can prove facts which do not contradict the record, as in Ex parte Cuddy,70 where the procedure was for contempt on an attempt to bribe a juror. The record did not show where the attempt to bribe was made, and the court held that, for the purpose of considering the question, the party could prove this, as it did not contradict the record."1

66 169 U. S. 39, 18 Sup. Ct. 291, 42 L. Ed. 653. See, also, Erickson v. Hodges, 179 Fed. 177, 102 C. C. A. 443. See "Habeas Corpus," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 61, 92; Cent. Dig. §§ 55, 87-96.

67 177 U. S. 378, 20 Sup. Ct. 673, 44 L. Ed. 813. See "Habeas Corpus," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 5; Cent. Dig. § 5.

68 Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 11 Sup. Ct. 620; Stretton v. Rudy, 176 Fed. 727, 101 C. C. A. 223. Corpus," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 79; Cent. Dig. § 70.

13, 34 L. Ed.
See "Habeas

69 In re Terry, 128 U. S. 289, 9 Sup. Ct. 77, 32 L. Ed. 405. See "Habeas Corpus," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 79; Cent. Dig. § 70.

70 131 U. S. 280, 9 Sup. Ct. 703, 33 L. Ed. 154. See "Habeas Corpus," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 92, 94; Cent. Dig. §§ 81-96.

71 Ex parte Mayfield, 141 U. S. 107, 11 Sup. Ct. 939, 35 L. Ed. 635. See "Habeas Corpus," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 92, 94; Cent. Dig. §§

Testimony, however, can be taken when it does not contravene these well-settled rules.72

Where the prisoner is entitled to a writ, the court will not always discharge him unconditionally, but will frequently hold him until the proper authorities can be notified, so as to permit his rearrest in case the error complained of can be corrected.73

NE EXEAT

91. This writ may be issued by the district court or Supreme Court in their respective spheres to prevent the party proceeded against from leaving the United States in order to defeat the ends of justice.

Under section 717 of the Revised Statutes," it is provided: "Writs of ne exeat may be granted by any justice of the Supreme Court, in cases where they might be granted by the Supreme Court; and by any circuit court justice or circuit judge, in cases where they might be granted by the court of which he is a judge. But no writ of ne exeat shall be granted unless a suit in equity is commenced, and satisfactory proof is made to the court or judge granting the same that the defendant designs quickly to depart from the United States."

The abolition of the circuit court by the Judicial Code substitutes the district court in its stead.

72 In re NEAGLE, 135 U. S. 1, 10 Sup. Ct. 658, 34 L. Ed. 55; Storti v. Massachusetts, 183 U. S. 138, 22 Sup. Ct. 72, 46 L. Ed. 120. See "Habeas Corpus," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 92-96; Cent. Dig. $$ 81-96.

73 In re Medley, 134 U. S. 160, 10 Sup. Ct. 384, 33 L. Ed. 835; In re Bonner, 151 U. S. 242, 14 Sup. Ct. 323, 38 L. Ed. 149. See "Habeas Corpus," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 109-111; Cent. Dig. §§ 97-100. 74 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 580.

The bankrupt act also gives the district court jurisdiction to issue process of this nature against a bankrupt.75

Under section 716, giving the Supreme Court, circuit courts, and district courts power to issue writs necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, the district court may also issue it in connection with a case in that court.

Nor is the right to issue it limited to the progress of the case before final decree, but it may be issued after final decree, as a means of preventing a debtor from concealing his property and absconding."

76

This writ, however, is not a matter of right, and the court, in its discretion, may refuse to issue it if the inconvenience to the defendant is great, and the plaintiff has equally convenient methods of protecting himself. For instance, where a citizen of New York applied to a United States court in Maine to issue it against a Canadian, who was merely there on a vacation, and who was easily suable in Quebec, in such case the judge refused to issue it."7

77

The usual condition of the bond taken from the defendant seized under this writ is that he will be amenable to the further orders and processes of the court issuing it, though it would not be improper to make the bond conditioned that he should perform the decree of the court.7

75 In re Berkowitz (D. C.) 173 Fed. 1012. See "Bankruptcy," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 265; Cent. Dig. § 802; "Ne Exeat," Dec. Dig. (KeyNo.) 4; Cent. Dig. § 7.

76 Shainwald v. Lewis (D. C.) 46 Fed. 839. See "Ne Exeat," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 1, 3; Cent. Dig. §§ 1-6.

77 Harrison v. Graham (C. C.) 110 Fed. 896. See "Ne Exeat," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 1, 3; Cent. Dig. §§ 1-6.

78 Griswold v. Hazard, 141 U. S. 260, 11 Sup. Ct. 972, 35 L. Ed. 678. See, also, In re Appel, 163 Fed. 1002, 90 C. C. A. 172, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 76. See "Ne Exreat," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 8; Cent. Dig. § 10.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

CHAPTER XI

DISTRICT COURT (Continued)-ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER ORDINARY CONTROVERSIES

The Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction of the District Courts.

Same Suits of a Civil Nature at Common Law or in Equity-
Meaning of "Suit."

Same-Same-Suits at Law.

Same Same-Suits in Equity.

Same Suits by the United States or Any Officer Thereof.
Same-Controversies between Citizens of the Same State Claim-
ing Lands under Grants of Different States.

Same-Jurisdictional Amount.

Same-Federal Questions.

100. Same-Controversies, between Citizens of Different States-Natural Persons.

THE ORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS

92. The ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the district court extends to cases in which the following requisites concur:

First. It must be a suit of a civil nature at common law

or in equity.

Second. It must be either

(1) Brought by the United States or an officer there

of, or

(2) Be between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants from different States, or (3) Exceed three thousand dollars and

(a) Arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, or

(b) Be between citizens of different States, or (c) Be between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects.