
    YOUNG v. THE BANK OF ALEXANDRIA.
    Alexandria upi promissory "enable*8 in that bank, are' entitled to trial at the return term of the wrlt>
    ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Coumbia, sitting ip Alexandria, in ári action of debt upera. promissory note, negotiable in the bank Alexandria, made by Young to Yeaton, and by him enibrsed to the bank.
    # . . The only question now argued, was whether the cotrt below erred in ruling the plaintiff in error into a tiaf rit the ¡return term of the writ. f
    The bill of exceptions set .forth the capias ad respoidendum issued by the circuit court .of the distviciof Columbia,' on the loth of November, 18Q7, returnable “ at the next court ” ■ The defendant below. vas taken on the T2th'of November. 'The .next. courl was holderi by law. on the 4th Monday of Novem&r, 1807. '
    
      It further stated, that the counsel for the plaintife below, having filed his declaration at the return tern, prayed', the court to fix a day for the trial of tie cause during the present term, and also t® rule the defendant to plead át 'a short day during the télm, and offered to consent that the' defendant shodd plead the general issue, and under that plea giVtin evidence any special matter which he cóuld piad, either in bar or abatement;." to which, the défendnt objected; but the court ruled him to plead the hxt day, and upon the general issue being joined, rted hint to trial immediately.
    By'the general rules of practicé established by He circuit- court it. is ordered, that all process" issung from that court, except executions, be made retunable before the court in.term time; and that rules be held in the clerk’s office on the day after the risng of the court in each term, and ón the same dajin each month thereafter during the vacation ; and, tat all proceedings and orders1 taker! at the rules skll conform as near as'may He to the rules bf profceedng directed by an act of the assembly of Virginia, ratified “ An act reducing into one the several sts concerning the'establishment, jurisdiction and powers of district courts,” and the several acts' atnendpg the' same. ,By that act, which was passed December 1792, it is ordered, that “ one month after he plaintiff Hath filed his declaration'he may giveanle to plead with''the clerk, and if the defendant shall rot plead accordingly at the expiration of such rule, the plaintiff,may enter judgment for his debt or dámá;es and costs.” “/.All rules to declare, plead, reply, rejoin, or for other proceedings, shall be given reguarly from month to month,’ shad be entered in a b ok to be kept for that purpose, and sháll expire bn the succeeding rule clay.” By the 25th section of hat act, it is provided that ip certain cases the shriff may take the engagement pf an attorney of the curt, endorsed on the writ, that he will appear for tin defendant, “ and such appearance shall be entered with the clerk in the office, on the first day after th' end of the court to xvhich such process is returnable, which 
      iy hereby declared to be the appearance day in all process returnable, to any day of the court next precedh£•.”
    , Br the act of "congress of 27th of February, 1801, it is declared that the laws of Virginia, as they then exised, should be and remain in force in that part of tie district of Columbia which was ceded by Vjrgijia to the United States. .
    By the act of congress, of the 3d of March, 1801, § 3. iiis. enacted, that the circuit court for the county of Alexandria, shall possess and exercise the same powers and jurisdiction civil and criminal as was.tbn possessed and exercised by the district cbuttsof Virginia.
    . By he act of assembly of Virginia, passed on the 23c of November, 1792, and which incorporated the bark, it is ordered, that in suits brought by the. bank,, ipon notes made negotiable therein, an issue shall be made up, and trial had at the return term of the writ.
    
      I lungs, lor tne plaintiff in error.
    Tie.act of 27th of February, 1801, conferred, on the circuit court for the district of Columbia, no other powers than those which had been giyen generally to the' circuit courts of the United States, by the act passed in the same session, vol.5. p. 237. § 11. and by that act no such power is given to those, courts in respect to the debts due to the bank.
    The' 3d section of the act of the 3d of March, 1801, relates .to-criminal jurisdiction only, or if it ■ relates to the civil jurisdiction, it is not clear that the: district courts of Virginia could exercise the power, because those courts were established after the act incorporating the bank.
    When this case was before this court at the last term, upon the.motion to quash the writ of error, this court decided that so. much of the'chartir as took away the right of appeal from the debtos to the bank, in the courts of Virginia, did not ap{]y to the courts of the United States; and a distinction was taken between the rights which the bank’ hid ás a body corporate and its remedies derived-from .particular provisions in its charter. -The sumnary . trial is nothing more than a form of remedy ivén by its charter, and cannot be binding upo' ’the courts of the United States. The proviso n the 16th .section of the act of the 27th of Febmary, 15JÓ1, only save? the rights, not the remedies, \i the corporation.
    
      Szmms and Swann, contra.
    The act incorporating the bank of Alexandria is -a public act, .and obligatory upon all the ctrtrts of Virginia,' By the act of congress of the 2 7 the f February, 1801, if is adopted, together with ill the other laws.of Virginia, as the law within the county of Alexandria; and is.therefore ás binding ujon the circuit..court ,of the. district of Columbia, as it was upon the courts of- Virginia; but lest any doubt should'exist on the subject, the act of congress, of the 3d of March, 1801, declares, that the. circuit ..court of that district '■'■shall possess and exercise the,same powers and jurisdiction, civil and criminal, as is now possessed and exercised by the district courts of Virginia.” Thei-e has never been a doubt bujt that the district courts of Virginia had jurisdiction, in cases in which the bank was pláintifl', and was bound, if requested, to compel the defendant to go tb trial at the return term. The clause in the charter' pf the bank js< an exception to the general law Upon the. subject pf judicial proceedings; 'but the exception is equal Invalid with the general rule.
    
      yones, in reply..
    The bank has not brought the case within the act. The writ is not returnable until the return day, and the return day is not.until after the'rising of the eoüyt.ü so that the bank is not entitled to a trial until the second term after issuing the writ. The writ.is returnable to the next court} but the officer has the whole term to return it ip, and may delay it until the very last moment of thé session.
   MavcK.lO.

Marshall, Ch. J.

delivered the opiniott of the court to the following effect:

The writ being returnable to the court, is returnable the- first day of the court, It was known to-the legislature of Virginia that the appearance day for •all process Was the day after the term,, When, therefore, they directed that a trial should he ha$. at'the return term,; they must have intended that this case should be an exception to the general rule.

| udgmeiit. affirmed.  