,6 FEDERAL nE1>on•rEB.
United States marshals in the state courts, where the marshals
claim to have been acting under process from the federal courts,
and the decision of the state courts are against the validity of the
process, may be carried by writ of error to the supreme court, and
then be reviewed under section 709, Bev. St. See Buck v. Oolbmth,
3 Wall. 334.
ln the case of Hauser v. Clayton, 3 Woods, 273, in a similar case
to this now under consideration, Justice BRADLEY said:
.•• The defendants justify the alleged trespass under the authority of a court
of the United States, and under the laws thereof. This presents ay case aris-
ing under the laws of the United States, and is within the terms and meaning
of the second section of the act of congress approved March 3,1875, entitled
·An act to determine the jurisdiction of circuit courts of the United States, etc.’
18 St. 470. Such a defense set up in a state court and overruled there would
clearly entitle the defendant to carry the case by writ of error to the supreme
court of the United States, both under the twenty-fifth section of the old judi-
cial act, and. under the_act of 1867, passed in lieu thereof. But the only
ground on which it could then be made reviewable by that court, is that it is a
case arising under the constitution or laws of the United States; and if it is
such a case, then it is removable to the circuit court of the United States under
the secondsection of the act of 1875, supra?
The first clause of the second section of the third article of the
constitution of the United States dehnes and limits the judicial power
of the United States. The provision therein that it "shal1 extend
to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the law
of the United States, and treaties mad.e," etc., is the authority from
which must be derived the jurisdiction of the supreme court to re-
view such cases by writs of error. It is clear that such cases do
not arise under the constitution nor under treaties. If they do not
arise under the laws of the United States, the supreme court
could not review them. Therefore, upon principle and authority, we
hold that this case under consideration is one arising under the laws
of the United States, and therefore removed properly to this court.
The earnest and ingenious argument by the learned counsel in fa-
vor of the motion to remand has induced us to fully examine the
question involved, but we think that the motion might well have _
been refused on the sole authority of Hauser v. Clayton, supra.
The motion to remand is denied.
LTCCORMICK, J., concurs.
W