Case ID: us_120/html/0225-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Harlan,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KING BRIDGE COMPANY v. OTOE COUNTY.
    ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA.
    Submitted January 7, 1887. —
    Decided January 31, 1887.
    An order drawn upon a county treasurer by county officials in favor of A • or order unindorsed, and a like order in favor of A, both assigned by A ‘ to B for a valuable consideration, constitute no cause of action in B’s favor on which B can maintain an action in a Circuit Court of the United States on the grbu )d of citizenship, if A could not maintain the action there on the same ground; and if, in such action in B’s favor A’s necesr sary qualification of citizenship does not affirmatively appear in the • record in this 'court, the writ of error w-ill be dismissed whether the question,of jurisdiction be made or not, and plaintiff in error adjudged to pay Costs in this court.
    . This action was brought, November 10, 1885, by the King Iron Bridge and Manufacturing Company, a corporation of Ohio, against Otoe County, in the State of Nebraska, to recover the amount of two county, warrants or orders, each' signed by the chairman of the county commissioners of the county and countersigned by the county clerk. One was dated 'October 9, 1878, and directed the “Treasurer of Otoe County to pay to Z. King, or, order, sixteen hundred and five dollars, and charge to account of special bridge fund,” and the other, dated January 9,1879, directed the “ Treasurer of Otoe County to pay to Z. King, sixteen hundred and five dollars, and charge to account of special bridge fund.” The first one being presented for payment on the 23d of October, 1878, was indorsed by the treasurer, “ Presented and not paid' for want of funds.” The* other was presented on the 15th of January, 1879, and received a like indorsement. The petition stated, in respect • of each warrant, that it had been for a valuable consideration “ sold, transferred and delivered ” by Z. King to the plaintiff, who sues as the holder and owner thereof.
    Judgment was asked for $3210, with ten per cent, interest on $1605 thereof from October 23, 1878, and for $1605 with .like interest from January 15, 1879.
    
      The defence was the limitation of five years prescribed by the local ,law for an action “ upon a specialty, or any agreement, contract, or promise in writing or foreign judgment.” .The court below overruled a demurrer to the answer and dismissed the action.
    
      Mr. N. S. Harwood and Mr. John H. Ames for plaintiff in error.
    
      Mr. John Q. Watson for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Harlan,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court. •

This case was argued upon the question of limitation. But we have no occasion to consider that question; for it does not appear that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the action. Unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record, the presumption, upon writ .of' error or appeal, is that the court below was without jurisdiction. Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Grace v. American Central Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 278, 283; Bors v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252; Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237. That the point as to jurisdiction was" not made here by either party is immaterial,'because, as said in Mansfield, &c., Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382, the rule, springing from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States, is inflexible and without exception, which requires this court, of its own motion, to deny its own jurisdiction, and,- in the exercise of its appellate power, that of all other courts of the United States, in all cases where such .jurisdiction does not affirmatively appear, in the record' on which, in the exercise of that power, it is called to act. On 'every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and'then of the court from which the record comes.” See also Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229, 231.

The act of March 3, 1875, §1, excludes from the cognizance of a circuit or district■ court of the United States “any suit founded on contract in favor of a,n assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover thereon if no assignment had been made, except in cases of promissory notes negotiable by. the law merchant, and bills of exchange.” One of the warrants is payable to Z. King, and the other to Z. King, or order. The latter is not indorsed by him in blank or to the order of the plaintiff. Plainly, therefore, upon any view of the statute, the plaintiff, as the holder or owner of the warrants, could not maintain a suit in the court below, unless King could have sued in that court, had he not sold the warrants. But it does not appear that King could' have maintained the suit. There is no averment as to his citizenship, nor, does his citizenship otherwise Appear from the record. We must, therefore, presume, on this writ of error, that thé Circuit Court was without' jurisdiction.

■It will be for the court below to determine whether an amendment of the pleadings upon the point of jurisdiction will be proper.

The plaintiff in error must pay the costs in this court. Peper v. Fordyce, 119 U. S. 469 Everhart v. Huntsville College, ante, 223.

Reversed.