[7] Michaelson v. United States, 266 U.S. 42 (1924).
[8] McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cr. 504 (1813); Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cr. 75 (1807).
[9] Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 (1825)
[10] Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U.S. 131 (1888).
[11] Ex parte Peterson, 253 U.S. 300 (1920).
[12] Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 378 (1867).
[13] Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793); Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 98 (1861) contains a review of authorities on this point.
[14] Mayor of Nashville v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 252 (1868); Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236 (1845); Shelden v. Sill, 8 How. 441 (1850); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226 (1922). See also the cases discussed under the heading of the [Power of Congress to regulate the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts], infra, p. 616.
[15] 2 Dall. 409 (1792).
[16] His initial effort was in United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40 (1852). This case involved the validity of an act of Congress directing the judge of the territorial court of Florida to examine and adjudge claims of Spanish subjects against the United States and to report his decisions with evidence thereon to the Secretary of the Treasury who in turn was to pay the award to the claimant if satisfied that the decisions were just and within the terms of the treaty of cession. After Florida became a State and the territorial court a district court of the United States, the Supreme Court refused to entertain an appeal under the statute for want of jurisdiction to review nonjudicial proceedings. The duties required by the act, it was said "are entirely alien to the legitimate functions of a judge or court of justice, and have no analogy to the general or special powers ordinarily and legally conferred on judges or courts to secure the due administration of the laws." Ibid. 51.