FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   630   631   632   633   634   635   636   637   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654  
655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   >>   >|  
hief Justice Marshall regarded the rule-making power as essentially legislative in nature, he ruled that Congress could delegate to the courts the power to vary minor regulations in the outlines marked out by the statute. Fifty-seven years later in Fink _v._ O'Neil,[81] in which the United States sought to enforce by summary process the payment of a debt, the Supreme Court ruled that under the process acts the law of Wisconsin was the law of the United States and hence the Government was required to bring a suit, obtain a judgment, and cause execution to issue. Justice Matthews for a unanimous Court declared that the courts have "no inherent authority to take any one of these steps, except as it may have been conferred by the legislative department; for they can exercise no jurisdiction, except as the law confers and limits it." Limits to the Power The principal function of court rules is that of regulating the practice of courts as regards forms, the operation and effect of process, and the mode and time of proceedings. However, rules are sometimes employed to state in convenient form principles of substantive law previously established by statutes or decisions. But no such rule "can enlarge or restrict jurisdiction. Nor can a rule abrogate or modify the substantive law." This rule is applicable equally to courts of law, equity, and admiralty, to rules prescribed by the Supreme Court for the guidance of lower courts, and to rules "which lower courts make for their own guidance under authority conferred."[82] As incident to the judicial power, courts of the United States possess inherent authority to supervise the conduct of their officers, parties, witnesses, counsel, and jurors by self-preserving rules for the protection of the rights of litigants and the orderly administration of justice.[83] The courts of the United States possess inherent equitable powers over their process to prevent abuse, oppression and injustice, and to protect their jurisdiction and officers in the protection of property in the custody of law.[84] Such powers are said to be essential to and inherent in the organization of courts of justice.[85] The courts of the United States also possess inherent power to amend their records, correct the errors of the clerk or other court officers, and to rectify defects or omissions in their records even after the lapse of a term, subject, however, to the qualification that the power to amend records
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   630   631   632   633   634   635   636   637   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654  
655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
courts
 

States

 
inherent
 

United

 
process
 

officers

 

possess

 
jurisdiction
 

authority

 

records


legislative
 

substantive

 

powers

 

justice

 

Justice

 
conferred
 

protection

 
Supreme
 
guidance
 

equally


previously

 

judicial

 

incident

 

established

 

equity

 

statutes

 

admiralty

 

decisions

 

conduct

 

supervise


prescribed
 

abrogate

 

enlarge

 
restrict
 

applicable

 

modify

 

equitable

 

correct

 
errors
 
essential

organization

 

rectify

 
defects
 

subject

 

qualification

 

omissions

 

rights

 

litigants

 

orderly

 

administration