trial of this cause by the jury, the plaintiff, to
maintain the issues on his part, read to the jury the
following agreed statement of facts, (see agreement above.)
No further testimony was given to the jury by either party.
Thereupon the plaintiff moved the court to give to the jury
the following instruction, viz:

"That, upon the facts agreed to by the parties, they ought
to find for the plaintiff. The court refused to give such
instruction to the jury, and the plaintiff, to such refusal,
then and there duly excepted."

The court then gave the following instruction to the jury,
on motion of the defendant:

"The jury are instructed, that upon the facts in this case,
the law is with the defendant." The plaintiff excepted to
this instruction.

Upon these exceptions, the case came up to this court.

It was argued at December term, 1855, and ordered to be
reargued at the present term.

It was now argued by _Mr. Blair_ and _Mr. G.F. Curtis_
[Transcriber's Note: should be 'G.T. Curtis,' for George
Ticknor Curtis] for the plaintiff in error, and by _Mr.
Geyer_ and _Mr. Johnson_ for the defendant in error.

The reporter regrets that want of room will not allow him to
give the arguments of counsel; but he regrets it the less,
because the subject is thoroughly examined in the opinion of
the court, the opinions of the concurring judges, and the
opinions of the judges who dissented from the judgment of
the court.

* * * * *

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This case has been twice argued. After the argument at the last term,
differences of opinion were found to exist among the members of the
court; and as the questions in controversy are of the highest
importance, and the court was at that time much pressed by the
ordinary business of the term, it was deemed advisable to continue the
case, and direct a reargument on some of the points, in order that we
might have an opportunity of giving to the whole subject a more
deliberate consideration. It has accordingly been again argued by
counsel, and considered by the court; and I now proceed to deliver its
opinion.

There are two leading questions presented by the record:

1. Had the Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction to hear and
determine the case between these par