[635] 18 How. 272 (1856).
[636] 285 U.S. 22 (1932).
[637] Ibid 56-57. Cf., however, Shields v. Utah, Idaho R. Co., 305 U.S. 185 (1938).
[638] Mayor of Nashville v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 252 (1868); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233, 234 (1922). See also Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cr. 303, 304 (1809) where Chief Justice Marshall disposed of the effort of British subjects to docket a case in a circuit court, saying, "turn to the article of the Constitution of the United States, for the statute cannot extend the jurisdiction beyond the limits of the Constitution."
[639] Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792).
[640] United States v. Ferriera, 13 How. 40 (1852); Gordon v. United States, 117 U.S. 697 (1864); Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911).
[641] In addition to the cases cited in [note 3], see Chicago & S. Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113-114 (1948).
[642] In addition to the cases cited in notes [2], [3], and [4] see Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464, 469 (1930); Postum Cereal Co. v. California Fig Nut Co., 272 U.S. 693 (1927); Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923). See also the dissenting opinion of Justice Rutledge in Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 468 (1944).
[643] Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568 (1926), where the Court held that the United States is always a possible adverse party to a naturalization petition.
[644] Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), where the Court sustained an act of Congress requiring the registration of Chinese and creating agencies for the expulsion of aliens unlawfully within the country and for the issuance of certificates to those entitled to remain. The act provided for special proceedings in such cases and prescribed the evidence the courts were to receive and the weight to be attached to it. The procedure was held to contain all the elements of a case—"a complainant, a defendant, and a judge—actor, reus, et judex." pp. 728-729.