the federal court instantly becomes the perfect successor of the territorial court, by mere force of the statute. The title of the federal court to the case is inchoate before request; but, whenever a request is made, its title at that moment becomes complete. The inheritance cannot at the same time be the property of two different heirs,—the state court and the federal court. Until request, the state court is the successor of the territorial court in such cases, as well as in all other cases. It rests with either party to say whether the federal court shall succeed to what would otherwise be the inheritance of the state court. Either party may make the request. That request, when properly made, is, in and of itself, the death of the old jurisdiction and the birth of the new. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and that court is directed to transfer this case to the federal circuit court, as requested. All concur.
Reporter: See also the following cases, arising under the Omnibus Bill: Dorne v. Richmond, (S. D.) 44 N. W. Rep. 1021; same case in 43 Fed. Rep. 690; Herman v. McKinney, 43 Fed. Rep. 689; U. S. v. Taylor, 44 Fed. Rep. 2; Nickerson v. Crook, 45 Fed. Rep. 658; Gull River Lumber Co. v. School Dist. No. 39, infra; Murray v. Bluebird Min. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 387; Dunton v. Muth, id. ib. 390; Carr v. Fife, 44 id. 713.
State of North Dakota, ex rel., Frank Ohlquist, Plaintiff, v. James K. Swan, as Sheriff of Grand Forks County, Defendant.
1. Intoxicating Liquors—Article 20 of the Constitution of North Dakota.
When a party was held by a magistrate for a violation of the laws against selling intoxicating liquor as a beverage without license, in force on that subject when the constitution was adopted, and committed, in default of bail, and brought before this court on habeas corpus proceedings, claiming that he was unlawfully restrained of his liberty, because all pre-existing laws against selling intoxicating liquor without license were repealed by article 20 of the constitution, (being prohibition article,) as being repugnant thereto, held that, if article 20 of the constitution be self-executing and operative, it repeals the pre-existing license law, including penalties.
