An appeal or writ of error lies from the judgments of the
Circuit Court of the District of Columbia to this Court in cases
where the Bank of Alexandria is plaintiff and the judgments below
are in its favor, notwithstanding the clause in its charter to the
contrary.
The right of Virginia to legislate for that part of the District
of Columbia which was ceded by her to the United States continued
until 27 February, 1801.
The act of Virginia incorporating the Bank of Alexandria is a
public law.
Alexandria.
C. Simms, for the defendant in error, having obtained a rule on
the plaintiff in error, to show cause why the writ of error should
not be quashed, Roungs, E. J. Lee, and Jones, now showed cause, and
read a printed paper produced by the other side purporting to be
the act of assembly of Virginia of 1792, incorporating the bank and
giving them a right to obtain judgments against their debtors at
the first term, without appeal or writ of error; another printed
paper, also produced by the other side, purporting to be the Act of
Assembly of Virginia of 21 January, 1801, continuing the act of
1792 until the year 1811, which would otherwise have expired in the
year 1803; the Act of Congress of 27 February, 1801, erecting the
Circuit Court for the District of Columbia and providing for an
appeal or writ of error to this Court in all cases where the matter
in dispute shall exceed the value of one hundred dollars, with a
proviso that nothing in that act should impair the rights granted
by, or derived from the acts of incorporation of any body corporate
within the district; the act of assembly of Virginia of 1789,
ceding to the United States a territory for the seat of their
government, and the Act of Congress of 1790, accepting the
cession.
They contended
1. That when the Legislature of Virginia passed the Act of 21
January, 1801, continuing the act of 1792, which incorporated the
bank, the State of Virginia had no power to legislate for the
District of Columbia, and therefore could not give continuance to
the act of 1792 as a law in that district. The consequence of
Page 8 U. S. 385
which is that there is now no law in the District of Columbia
which gives to the bank any exclusive privileges.
2. That the act of Virginia of 2 January, 1801, was not adopted
as the law for the District of Columbia by the Act of Congress of
27 February, 1801.
3. That if the act of 21 January, 1801, was adopted as to its
general provisions, yet so much of it as takes away the right of
appeal was not adopted, because inconsistent with that part of the
adopting law, which gives an appeal or writ of error, in all cases
where the matter in dispute exceeds the value of $100.
4. That the acts of 1792 and 21 January, 1801, were private
acts, and that the papers read, purporting to be those acts, were
not sufficiently authenticated, and could not be noticed by the
Court.
The points being opened, the Court requested to hear the counsel
on the other side.
Page 8 U. S. 396
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the
Court:
This is a motion to quash a writ of error which has issued to a
judgment obtained by the Bank of Alexandria in the Circuit Court
for the District of Columbia sitting in Alexandria. In support of
the motion, it is contended that no writ of error lies to such a
judgment.
The words of the Act of Congress of February, 1801, by which the
circuit court for the District of Columbia was erected, are
these:
"Any final judgment, order, or decree in the said circuit court
wherein the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the
value of one hundred dollars may be reexamined, and reversed or
affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of error
or appeal."
Upon the operation of this clause in the "act concerning the
District of Columbia," no doubt could be entertained were it not
produced by the last section, which enacts that nothing in that act
contained
"shall in any wise alter, impeach, or impair the rights granted
by or derived from the acts of incorporation of Alexandria and
Georgetown or of any other body corporate or politic within the
district."
The State of Virginia had, in November, 1792, passed an act for
establishing a bank in the Town of Alexandria, which act
incorporated the bank, and, in addition to the privilege of summary
process for the recovery
Page 8 U. S. 397
of debts, deprived their debtors of the right of appeal.
In January, 1801, the Legislature of Virginia passed an act
continuing the charter of the bank to 4 March in the year 1801 and
authorizing them to transact business in the County of Fairfax.
It is the opinion of the majority of the Court, under the terms
of the cession and acceptance of the District, that the power of
legislation remained in Virginia until it was exercised by
Congress.
But the question recurs whether that part of the act of Virginia
which takes away the right of appeal, taken in connection with the
act of Congress passed in February, 1801, is now in operation.
The words of the act of Congress, being as explicit as language
can furnish, must comprehend every case not completely excepted
from them. The saving clause in the last section only saves
existing rights; it does not extend those rights or give new ones.
The act incorporating the bank professes to regulate, and could
regulate, only those courts which were established under the
authority of Virginia. It could not affect the judicial proceedings
of a court of the United States or of any other state.
There is a difference between those rights on which the validity
of the transactions of the corporation depends which must adhere to
those transactions everywhere, and those peculiar remedies which
may be bestowed on it. The first are of general obligation; the
last, from their nature, can only be exercised in those courts
which the power making the grant can regulate. The act of
incorporation, then, conferred on the Bank of Alexandria a
corporate character, but could give that corporate body no peculiar
privileges in the courts of the United States not belonging to it
as a corporation. Those privileges do not exist unless conferred by
an act of Congress.
Page 8 U. S. 398
The mere saving in an act of Congress which expressly renders
all judgments of the circuit court for a larger sum than one
hundred dollars reexaminable by writ of error in this Court cannot
be considered as exempting judgments rendered in favor of the bank
from the operation of this general enacting clause respecting writs
of error. If the act of March, 1801, be considered as giving the
bank a right to proceed in the Circuit Court for Alexandria in the
same manner as by the act of incorporation, it might proceed in
Virginia, yet that act does not affect the writ of error as given
in the act of 27 February.
The motion is therefore overruled.
