p. R. ». M. P. ET. GO. 773 �the present suit is one that Îes auxilîary to the former suit in which the decree of foreclosare was had ; that it is so far merely a continuation of that suit ; and that it is not a new and' orig- inal suit in the sense that requires process to be restricted td those who have the requisite citizenship in ordinary suite in the federal courts. It may be conceded for the purposes of tbis motion that it is to a certain estent auxiliary to the orig- inal foreclosure suit, and that proceedings to set aside that decree, and to set aside also the sale of the railroad under that decree, can only be instituted in the circuit court of the United States in which that decree was rendered. But it also partakes so far of the nature of an original suit that the par- ties who are here contesting service of this process cannot be brought before the court by anything short of a subpœna in c^ancery; and cannot be eompelled to answer and respond to the allegations of the present bill in any other mode than in the mode usually adopted in original chancery bills. �The argument that in such a case as this a subpœna in chancery can be issued so as to run beyond the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the court, and be validly served beyond that jurisdiction, oveiiooks two important propo- sitions : �1. It is of the essence of the power and jurisdiction of ail courts that their process is of no validity beyond the territory in which the court sits and to which its jurisdiction extends. If, therefore, there is no other statute on the subject than simply that the circuit court of the United States for the east- ern district of Missouri shall have jurisdiction co-extensive with the limits of the district, it would follow logically from this limitation upon the inherent power of ail courts that its process shall be of no validity beyond its territorial lines. There is nothing in any statute of the United States that gives to the process of the circuit court of the United States, in a civil case, any power to bring a party within the jurisdiction of that court when he is not in and cannot be served within the limits of the territory. �2. On the contrary, section 739 of the Eevised Statutes, which represents the law as it has been ever since 1789, pro- ����
