Sec. 267. Suits in equity will not be sus tained in any courts of the United States in any case where a plain, adequate, and complete remedy may be had at law.
Sec. 268. The said courts shall have power to impose and administer all necessary oaths, and to punish, by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, contempts of their authority : Provided, that such power to punish contempts shall not be construed to extend to any cases except the misbe havior of any person in their presence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administra tion of justice, the misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their official trans actions, and the disobedience or resistance by any such officer, or by any party, juror, wit ness, or other person to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the said courts.
Sec. 269. All of the said courts shall have power to grant new trials, in cases where there has been a trial by jury, for reasons for which new trials have usually been granted in the courts of law.
Sec. 270. The judges of the supreme court, and the circuit and district judges, the Unit ed States commissioners, judges and other magistrates of the several states who have authority to make arrests for offenses against the United States, shall have the like author ity to hold to the security of the peace and for good behavior, in cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, as may be lawfully exercised by any judge or justice of the peace of the respec tive states.
Sec. 272. In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally, or by the assistance of such counsel or attorneys as, by the rules of the said courts respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.
By section 289, circuit courts are, on the taking effect of the act, abolished, and when ever in any law not embraced within this act any reference is made to, or any power or duty is conferred upon, the circuit courts, such reference shall be deemed to confer such power, etc., upon the district courts.
The act was approved March 3, 1911, and took effect January 1, 1912.
The Judicial Code did not abolish the dis trict court, but transferred to it cases pend ing in the circuit court; U. S. v. Mfg. Co., 195 Fed. 778. The new district court is the successor of the formerly existing circuit court and is vested with the duty of hearing and disposing of cases under the Expedition Act of 1903; Ex parte U. S., 226 U. S. 420, 33 Sup. Ct. 170, 57 L. Ed. 281.
The words inhabitant, resident, and citi zen, as used in the Judicial Code, §§ 51, 52, contemplate the same condition and all in clude the idea of domicile; U. S. v. Gronich, 211 Fed. 548.
Under Judicial Code, § 51, where jurisdic tion depends on diverse citizenship alone, plaintiff is entitled to sue in the district of his residence, but is not required under § 53 to sue in the division of the district in which he resided; Reich v. Copper Co., 209 Fed. 880.
Under R. S. § 649, and Judicial Code § 291, issues of fact may by consent be tried in the district court without a jury ; such a trial no longer amounts to an arbitration and may be reviewed ; Nashville I. Ry. v. Barnum, 212 ' Fed. 634.
An unsatisfied, justiciable claim of some right involving the jurisdictional amount is a controversy between the parties within the meaning of the statutes defining the jurisdic tion of the circuit [district] court, and such jurisdiction does not depend upon the denial by the defendant of the existence of the claim or of its amount or validity ; In re Metropol itan Ry. Receivership, 208 U. S. 90, 28 Sup. Ct. 219, 52 L. Ed. 403. Jurisdiction cannot be given to the federal courts based upon the alleged anticipated defense which may be set up and which is invalid under some law or provision of the constitution of the United States. The jurisdiction must affirm atively appear from the statements of the complainant's case ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149, 29 Sup. Ct. 42, 53 L. Ed. 126.
A federal court within its limitations re specting jurisdiction over the subject-matter is a court of general jurisdiction ; Toledo, St. L. & W. R. Co. v. Perenchio, 205 Fed. 472, 123 C. C. A. 540.