Document: 394 U.S. 823 89 S.Ct. 1487 23 L.Ed.2d 9 Clayton S. KRAMER, Petitioner,v.CARIBBEAN MILLS, INC. No. 156. Argued Jan. 23, 1969. Decided May 5, Eugene Gressman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Dennis G. Lyons, respondent. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The sole question presented by this case is whether Federal District Court in which it was brought had jurisdiction over cause, or that court deprived 28 U.S.C. § 1359. That section provides: 2 'A district shall not have a civil action any party, assignment otherwise, has been improperly collusively made joined to invoke such court.' 3 facts were these. Respondent Caribbean Mills, Inc. (Caribbean) Haitian corporation. In 1959 entered into contract with an individual named Kelly and Panama Venezuela Finance Company (Panama), Panamanian Corporation. agreement provided would purchase from 125 shares corporate stock, return payment $85,000 down additional $165,000 12 annual installments. 4 No installment payments ever made, despite requests Panama. 1964, assigned its entire interest petitioner Kramer, attorney Wichita Falls, Taxas. stated consideration $1. By separate dated same day, Kramer promised pay back 95% net recovery on cause action,1 'solely as Bonus.' 5 soon thereafter suit aga nst United States Northern Texas, alleging diversity citizenship between himself Caribbean.2 denied Caribbean's motion dismiss want jurisdiction. proceeded trial, jury returned verdict favor Kramer. 6 On appeal, Appeals Fifth Circuit reversed, holding 'improperly made' within meaning 1359, consequence lacked We granted certiorari, 393 819, 99, 21 91 (1968). For reasons follow, we affirm judgment Appeals. I. 7 issue before us party 'to jurisdiction' Court, look first legislative background. 8 Section 1359 existed present form only since 1948 revision Judicial Code. Prior time, use devices create regulated two federal statutes. first, known 'assignee clause,' that, certain exceptions here relevant: 'No cognizance * recover upon promissory note other chose assignee unless might prosecuted if no made.'3 10 second pre-1948 statute, 80 (1940 ed.),4 should whenever: 11 'it appear satisfaction does really substantially involve dispute controversy properly (the) court, parties said purpose creating (federal jurisdiction).' As part revision, amended produce clause simultaneously repealed. Reviser's Note describes "jumble jargon,"5 states '(t)he revised changes confining application cases wherein *. Furthermore, original (the assignee) better served following 80.' be prevent manufacture device assignment.' Ibid. II. 13 Only small number decided under involved based assignments,6 considered matter revision. Because approach former forbid grounding assignment, regardless circumstances purpose,7 decisions are little assistance. However, predecessor ed.), seem squarely point. These decisions, together evident lead concl de correct finding made.' 14 most compelling precedent Farmington Village Corp. v. Pillsbury, 114 138, 807, 29 L.Ed. (1885). There Maine holders bonds issued village desired test bonds' validity courts. effort accomplish this, they cut coupons their transferred them citizen Massachusetts, who gave non-negotiable two-year $500 promise 50% amount recovered above $500. jurisdictional certified held there because plaintiff collusively' statute ed.). pointed out could easily released his note, found apart hoped-for creation real transfer enable Massachusetts 'retain one-half what he collects name trouble collecting.' U.S., at 146, S.Ct., 811. concluded 'the 'a mere contrivance, pretense, result collusive arrangement create" 15 find indistinguishable like tenor.8 When total lack previous connection simultaneous reassignment Penama, can doubt purposes collection, retain 5% proceeds 'for collecting.'9 If unsuccessful, $1, plus costs. Moreover, candidly admits 'assignment substantial motivated desire (Panama's) counsel make available *.'10 16 conclusion supported but also statute's purpose. created assignments kind, easy arrange few disadvantages assignor, then vast quantity ordinary tort litigation channeled courts will one parties. Such 'manufacture very thing Congress intended when enacted predecessors. III. 17 nevertheless argues him main reasons. First, suggests undisputed legality Texas law necessarily rendered valid cannot accept contention. existence federal, state law. See, e.g., Missouri P.R. Co. Fitzgerald, 160 556, 582, 389, 396, 40 536 (1896). Under section, several times even though binding law,11 nothing language history different reached statute. argument render largely incapable accomplishing purpose; demonstrates ease may 'manufacture' meets requirements 18 Second, urges significantly distinguishable earlier involves 1332(a)(2), arising alienage parties, rather than more common parties' residence States. perceive substance argument: terms, applies equally both types jurisdiction, indication treated differently. IV. 19 short, falls scope core. It follows hear action, must seek remedy courts.12 affirmed. 20 Affirmed. FORTAS took decision case. is, receive 5%, 95%, remaining after attorneys' fees expenses litigation. Title 1332(a)(2) grants actions exceeds $10,000 'citizens State, foreign citizens subjects thereof *.' against Caribbean, alien corporations. 41(a) appeared Judiciary Act 1789, Stat. 79. This 1875. See 470. quotation Comment, Chaos Jurisdiction Courts, 35 Ill.L.Rev. 566, 569 (1941); refers primarily obscure wording contained clause. id., 569—571. cited 3A J. Moore, Practice 17.05(3 1), nn. 7—9 (2d ed. 1968). particular assignments, none relevant here. Williams Nottawa, 104 209, 26 719 (1881); Little Giles, 118 596, 32, 30 269 (1886). Hence, occasion re-examine where claim absolute, transferor retaining subject matter, made,' transferor's motive. Cross Allen, 141 528, 67, 843 (1891); South Dakota North Carolina, 192 286, 24 269, 48 448 (1904); Black & White Taxicab Transfer Brown Yellow Co., 276 518, 404, 72 681 (1928); cf. Williamson Osenton, 232 619, 34 442, 58 758 (1914). Nor necessary consider whether, required administrator guardian, motive renders appointment out-of-state representative 'improper' 'collusive.' McSparran Weist, 402 F.2d 867 (3 Cir. 1968); Lang Elm City Constr. 324 235 (2 1963); County Todd Loegering, 297 470 (8 1961); Mecom Fitzsimmons Drilling 284 183, 52 84, 76 233 (1931). Cases involving representatives vary respects those assignments: (1) situation, some appointed brought, while latter assignor normally capable suing court; (2) law, kinds guardians administrators prossess discrete sorts o powers; (3) all owe decree solely decide these distinctions difference Brief Petitioner 16. 602, 36, (1886); Lehigh Mining Mfg. Kelly, 327, 336, 307, 311, 444 (1895); Smith Kernochen, How. 198, 215—216, 666 (1849). asks our ruling prospective only, asserting reasonably believed right four-year limitations governing actions, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Art. 5527 (1948), bar recovering installments allegedly due him. another Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. 5539a 'When set aside annulled direct proceeding, Trial sixty (60) days dismissal becomes final, commenced Proper Jurisdiction, period date filing commencement counted limitation opposite show intentional disregard jurisdiction.' apply grounds court. Burford Sun Oil 186 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.Civ.App.1944). alleges accrued July 1, 1962. appears assure full state-court remedy, thus obviates need further discussion prospectivity.

Category: 8