of
this case.

"FIELD, _for Plaintiff_.
"GARLAND, _for Defendant_."

Upon the aforegoing agreed facts, the plaintiff prayed the court to
instruct the jury that they ought to find for the plaintiff, and upon
the refusal of the instruction thus prayed for, the plaintiff excepted
to the court's opinion. The court then, upon the prayer of the
defendant, instructed the jury, that upon the facts of this case
agreed as above, the law was with the defendant. To this opinion,
also, the plaintiff's counsel excepted, as he did to the opinion of
the court denying to the plaintiff a new trial after the verdict of
the jury in favor of the defendant.

The question first in order presented by the record in this cause, is
that which arises upon the plea in abatement, and the demurrer to that
plea; and upon this question it is my opinion that the demurrer should
have been overruled, and the plea sustained.

On behalf of the plaintiff it has been urged, that by the pleas
interposed in bar of a recovery in the court below, (which pleas both
in fact and in law are essentially the same with the objections
averred in abatement,) the defence in abatement has been displaced or
waived; that it could therefore no longer be relied on in the Circuit
Court, and cannot claim the consideration of this court in reviewing
this cause. This position is regarded as wholly untenable. On the
contrary, it would seem to follow conclusively from the peculiar
character of the courts of the United States, as organized under the
Constitution and the statutes, and as defined by numerous and
unvarying adjudications from this bench, that there is not one of
those courts whose jurisdiction and powers can be deduced from mere
custom or tradition; not one, whose jurisdiction and powers must not
be traced palpably to, and invested exclusively by, the Constitution
and statutes of the United States; not one that is not bound,
therefore, at all times, and at all stages of its proceedings, to look
to and to regard the special and declared extent and bounds of its
commission and authority. There is no such tribunal of the United
States as a court of _general jurisdiction_, in the sense in which
that phrase is applied to the superior courts under the common law;
and even with respect to the courts existing under that system, it is
a well-settled principle, that _consent_ can never give jurisdiction.

The principles above stated, and the consequences regularly deducible