The Court Legacy The Historical Society for the United States District Court Vol. XVIII, No. 2 for the Eastern District of Michigan ©20 11 September 20 11 U.S. Supreme Court Review of outline the court system then put in place by Congress. The Cases Originating in the District District Court established in of Michigan: 1836 to 1863 Michigan in July 1836 had jurisdiction over admiralty By David A. Gardey 1 and maritime cases, as well as minor civil and petty criminal Before Congress created the cases. 2 Judge Wilkins was Eastern District of Michigan responsible for these cases. on February 24, 1863, all of Above the District Court, Michigan had been in one Congress established the federal district with one Circuit Court of the United United States District Judge, States for the District of John McLean, the Honorable Ross Wilkins. Michigan. The Circuit Court United States Supreme Court Justice, 1829-1861 Federal cases were heard had jurisdiction over diversity either by Judge Wilkins in the cases and major criminal District Court or by a visiting cases. In addition, the Circuit Court heard appeals U.S. Supreme Court Justice in from the District Court. The Circuit Court consisted the Circuit Court for the of at least one Supreme Court Justice, literally riding Ross Wilkins, District of Michigan. From circuit to Michigan, and the District Judge, Judge United States District the creation of the District Wilkins. The Circuit Justice assigned to Michigan in Judge, 1837-1870 of Michigan on July 1, 1836, the mid-nineteenth century was Justice John McLean, until the creation of the who served on the Supreme Court from 1829 to 1861. 3 Eastern District twenty-seven years later, there were Appeals from the Circuit Court would then go to nineteen reported decisions of the United States the Supreme Court. Several of the appeals that the Supreme Court that originated in the federal Circuit Supreme Court heard during this era resulted when or District court of Michigan. An examination of Justice McLean and Judge Wilkins could not agree these cases provides insight into the early federal on a result in the Circuit Court. At the time, it was docket and the legal battles taking place in Michigan the practice that the Justice who was assigned to the in the mid-nineteenth century. They paint an historical Circuit Court would recuse himself on appeals from portrait of a young sovereignty developing its first his Circuit Court unless there was a split vote. 4 By industries of mining, lumber, and railroads, while still Act of Congress, District Judges could not vote in beleaguered by property disputes stemming back to the Circuit Court in reviewing an appeal of their the French and Indian War. While some of the cases own decisions from the District Court. 5 are interesting from a purely historical perspective, The District and Circuit Courts in Michigan had two others are significant as to the scope of the several appointed officials to assist in their duties. 6 Supreme Court’s power, holding that Congress can After Michigan became a state, Commissioners limit the jurisdiction of federal courts and that for United States Courts were appointed by the federal courts must yield to the highest state court in Circuit Court, and their term was for life. Their interpreting state statutes. The precedential value of work appears to be similar to the Magistrate Judges these cases remains alive today. of today. The Commissioners’ duties included Before examining some of the Michigan federal cases conducting hearings and taking testimony as that reached the Supreme Court, it is helpful to referred by either the Circuit or District Court. The testimony taken would have the same force as The Historical Society for the United States testimony taken in the courts, and the Commissioners District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan were used in order to lessen the burden on the judges. Established in 1992 The parties to any case could jointly select the BOARD OF TRUSTEES Commissioner before whom testimony would be President taken. After Michigan became a state, the District and Michael J. Lavoie Circuit Courts also appointed Masters in Chancery to Vice President assist in the chancery work. Brian D. Figot The earliest reported decision from the District of Secretary Michigan that reached the Supreme Court was the Paula A. Hall 1845 case of Charles Carroll v. Orrin Safford Treasurer (Treasurer of Genesee County) .7 After the plaintiff, Samuel C. Damren Charles Carroll, bought 3,549.71 acres of federal land Executive Director in 1836 for $7,500, the Treasurer of Genesee County Judith K. Christie seized and sold the land after Carroll failed to pay Catherine M. Beck taxes before he received his land patent from the David G. Chardavoyne United States in 1837. The Supreme Court held against Hon. Avern Cohn Carroll, finding that he owed the state taxes on the Thomas W. Cranmer land from the date he purchased it, even before he M. Ellen Dennis Hon. John Feikens received his patent from the United States. David A. Gardey The 1849 decision in Jonathan Nesmith v. Thomas Alan C. Harnisch Sheldon ,8 presented a more important issue of the Michael C. Leibson Matthew J. Lund power of the U.S. Supreme Court in relation to state John P. Mayer courts. In Nesmith, the issue of law involved the Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III establishment of banking associations by the Gregory V. Murray Michigan Legislature. This issue had already been Ross G. Parker addressed and decided in a separate case that had Jeffrey G. Raphelson reached the Michigan Supreme Court. Before the U.S. Jeffrey A. Sadowski Matthew Schneider Supreme Court, counsel for the plaintiff argued that it Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow would be wrong for the U.S. Supreme Court to I.W. Winsten “presume that the State courts are infallible, and their Advisor decisions an unerring exposition of the State statute, David J. Weaver and shut their eyes entirely to the terms and provisions of the statute, and refuse to inquire THE COURT LEGACY whether the decision of a State court is a fair John P. Mayer, Editor M. Ellen Dennis, Assistant Editor explanatory law.” In fact, counsel argued that the “national courts, which were created to protect the Published periodically by The Historical Society for the United rights of citizens of other States,” should not “allow States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Office of the Clerk, Room 216, Theodore Levin United States their suitors to be wronged and defrauded in like Courthouse, Detroit, MI 48226-2797. manner.” In other words, counsel was calling for the Subscriptions available through any Society membership. U.S. Supreme Court to protect citizens from another Membership benefits include the Newsletter, voting privileges, state harmed as a result of an incorrect, and possibly and the Annual Meeting. The Historical Society has extended the benefits of membership to members of the Eastern District biased, interpretation of state law by the Michigan of Michigan Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. Supreme Court that benefitted Michigan citizens. In Papers are encouraged to be submitted to the Newsletter editor response, counsel for the defendant argued that were for consideration as MS Word (preferred) or WordPerfect the U.S. Supreme Court to contradict the Michigan documents to [email protected] or m.ellen.dennis@gmailcom. Supreme Court, it “is plain that the consequences The Court Legacy reserves copyright to authors of signed articles. Permission to reprint a signed article should be would be most disastrous,” creating multiple versions obtained directly from the author and The Court Legacy of state law depending on the venue, and give should be acknowledged in the reprint. Unsigned material may non-residents the right to collect on obligations, be reprinted without permission provided The Court Legacy is given credit. while state residents were barred from collecting based on the decisions of the state courts. Page 2 Defense counsel argued that while it protects the citizens of Michigan from the “It is difficult to imagine a payment of admitted debts,” the Court decided that case in which a disagreement the case “peculiarly calls upon us not to surrender between the federal tribunals our clear convictions and unbiased judgment to the and the State judicatories authority of the new state decision.” would be more alarming or The power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of mischievous.” federal courts was demonstrated by the decision in The Supreme Court, with Thomas Sheldon v. William Sill .10 Sheldon was Chief Justice Roger Taney brought as a diversity case in the Circuit Court in writing for the Court, held Michigan by a New York plaintiff against Michigan that since the Michigan defendants for recovery on a mortgage. The Circuit Supreme Court had already Court held in favor of the plaintiff and rejected the Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the ruled on the issue, “it is the defendants’ claim that the court lacked jurisdiction United States, 1836-1864 established doctrine of this because an assignment of a mortgage cannot create court, that it adopt and diversity under a strict reading of the Congressional follow the decisions of the State courts in the statute. Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the construction of their own constitution and statutes, New York plaintiff argued that under the when that construction has been settled by the Constitution, the judicial power of United States decision of its highest judicial tribunal.” Given the courts extended to all controversies between citizens prior decision of the state court, the issue “cannot be of different states. Since the case involved a considered as open for argument in this court.” controversy between citizens of different states, then Thus, the Supreme Court would not seek to interfere there was jurisdiction.