Case ID: scl_14/html/0009-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      \n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John D. Brown, ads. Stephen West Moore, for Maria Tate.
    A note given in New-Orleans by the debtor then living there, to a transient person who indorses it to the plaidtiff living in Charleston, may be ened upon before the city court, where the defendant the drawer has removed to Charleston, and is living there at the time suit is brought.
    Assumpsit on a promissory note.
    Tried at Charleston, before Judge Drayton, the recorder, who made the following report:
    “ The following statement of facts was submitted by the parties. The note was'drawn in New-Orleans by the defendant in favor of one Hatcher; dated 1st May, 1821, payable 30 days after date. Hatcher indorsed it to the plaintiff; Hatcher is a transient per son; the plaintiff is a resident of the city of Charleston. On the 5th April 1823, the defendant paid in Charleston $80 in part of the note. The defendant left, New Orleans on the 10th June 1821, and has resided in Charleston since the 14th July in the same year. No demand for payment of the note had been made upon the defendant in New Orleans. The action in the city court was commenced against the defendant on the 18'th June, 1824 Several grounds-of defence' were taken at the trial,- buf as the appeal is exclusively founded upon tira watft of jurisdic-' tion in the court, it will not be necessary forme to notice any other. The defendant’s counsel contended that as the cause of action had arisen at New-Orleans, this- court had no jurisdiction under the acts of Assembly passed'in 1801 and 1818. As there appeared to me to be no-doubt of the courts having jurisdiction, 1 overruled the plea in bar to its jurisdiction, upon which the case went t© the jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff” A motion was made to set aside the verdict on the ground:
    That the note having been dated and drawn at New-Orleans, the cause of action was not within thejurisdiction of the city court of Charleston, under the acts of 1801 and 181-8.-
    
      Argued, 8th March 1835.
    
      Echhard, for the motion.
    By the act of 1801, (3 Bree. Dig. 47, 8,) jurisdiction is given to the court over such contracts or causes of action as are made or arise within the city! The expression of'the act of 1812, is arising within the city. ■ The act of 1801 provides nothing shall prevent a suit . against, one resident within- the city.-
    The act of 1818 only enlarges thejurisdiction as to the amount to be sued for. Jurisdiction not to be extended by construction. (Taiman vs. Thomson, 2"M‘ Cord’4.5.)
    
      Finley contra.
    The act of 1 SOI, contains.nothing in it a bar to an action between a resident of another1 state, and a citizen of Charleston. (1 M‘ Cord 325.)
    
    
      Frost in reply.
    The preamble is a Itey to the statute. Local jurisdiction for contracts arising in Charleston, to be judged of by the customs of the city.. For trial' of causes .arising in the - city.
   Per Curiam.

The court is satisfied with the opinion of Úic recorder. The motion i$ refused».