, 1869-04-23
THE COURTS Of LAW AND EQUITY.

Chamberlain and Eckhcr, det-idts d question In
relation tn the Jurisdiction af tho Feerol courts
In suits upon rrolnssurf notes. which is Of large
interest To the commercial nlca uf the country
The case was presented for the defendant hy
Elliot Anthony, Esq, and by J. Milton Peters,
E*4:, for psaintln.
The motion made in this case is to strike the de-
muIrer u tle 1eclarailon from the Giles.
The Position Il the case a1 the time tho de-
1nu1rer was fled was tins: 4 replication had
sdp G sa she pSa sans ne
Thar the s1it had been dismissed and wns no
and dhdtf TIE 70 tes 'sp!9atsn
;hr Court holding that the replication was good
Without Icase uf tile Court, The defendant llcd q
dtllur1cr 70 the declaration.
thulk the motion 1uust b. sustained
Inc plaintiff, when the demurrer to the replica
ti"u was overzuled. was entitled to Judgment upon
1.e demurrer. Before the defendant could rc1oia
1o The replication, OF take any actlou In relation to
&ourt The proper Judgment Of THE Court would
follow upon The demurrer. as necessary conse-
tncncc- 1t IS known. however, Tint general
thing, tie Court Is YER, Liberal in the exercise
Ier 10 b. withdrawn and issues Of fact
7t tn hut tic defendant 'eunrrul to The 'lecara-
1,oll have, however, Us il Is question Of jnrls-
1'e tclaratloti- 1t Is upon Unsigned pronissory
itott, and a!ers that the IlalnlEl is citizen oi
Vermont, and that the as:enor Of thc note is q
sttizen of Missouri, aid that the defendant is a
citizen OF Illinois / am satisfied il:st lhr Coust
Las lurassetiun Of tho case
Tie ground taken s.s the defendant Is, that 1t
where ari!on is brought upon a pronss,ry note
I! N assigncc, TINT the asssnor could have
rtISit f1it upon the ntc before f1c aAsiEned It.
TT. question, Il, whether ttat Is correct
Inc c'1us: II tho eleventh sttilon Of the Judi
rtl aci Is: Mr. shall aJ District or Circuit Court
ia''> tsRnt1aure of anv suit IN rc0vcr the con-
7rts OF HI. Ir"ns.."r, alhrr cinsr ar
ipii Ill ta.U M An II, sEiler, unless suit might
i.ttr tccn prosecuted III tirs court Ia rettyer the
So; contents 4 no ns,giatAent had heeu u.a.s,
rNrtit in tast' ~ foreign hills uf exchange
Tie tucr''rn If. t" wha, time docs the language
t'ilS.:t ha.e ;"ru Prosecuted apply !: Does 1t
:;liy IN ts' ,.tE' when the :.sst;,aor l,c!a ant
snlisst the Ir''s:uEy no1c. or I" tnv time WHEN
iht suit u brut.2ht: Il r1nissnry nu,'. Ii made
A,'tzsn" Wisconsin toa citlzcn Of the sa,nc
i ei,szsn @ ii + NV " FIX. slF' a. t,e ''n ttae NC
'si: he ass!l:r ,ctt The nasc he coul not t1ins
.u.hrr, iAraus IL citizen Of III: nii1e .;laie
WIN the tr.h.I; nrl,er c"nid The assignee, c,ts-
z,n , q :, SSn 1oTk !.;inc sult III tic Federal
rt'lzrH Of W~ttHsip, hui II tie ns,ignor ceaxeu to
i":' citizen If wisconsin, t"n, M take It, a
t1!lt could Ia: 1stnEht III i'H Fc,tcrl Cpnrt Of
Wi~cnnH,r y flr III tsn,. mil holder U ti,c nntr
fasusi, then. l<,ng III the position ~ ~ il no ~.
r!'nt'ent '.l itct' i,n,1", h., II cilzrn of New
t'">ts1 tn r. tHixtn VI Wisconsin, coIlt,I. Will"
ir ~:.s ho't':r q liz notr, lrlg eat III ,h Fet-
.Ea1 tourt of WhftIsn. h+:tasieG hr hui changed
~ residence art! his citizenship, nud i,ccuulc /.
citizen ri nil Itrr STATE.
Int II tt FlaIc cunr1nlctl Tor s.y thn ..,'fcn,ant
a'he fruc snr, tlls'n liz change In lhc ata,aa Of
shr 1nycc. nft.:F fr assignment, rnnl ever enable
~. , ~, .4 n.g xu!t an = might happsn, whore
"1 aHr'hrr h'!s:r, nEni vt tac ,lun NJ Inc com.
!nehett rht IT The h'!it IN the Fe!ur4l Court, hu
e."l sr nsa'n'll,,l tr lnr nssig1.cu, citizen OF
:1'"'htF S'At., lrcAusc yon have ~ look
;"1,'.,s =, t, !. M is' view % tns h., dssnss
:.-i:n"r hell The noit anil was The 1wncr Of IT,
:.'|, IT. t.. es:r cnn. hase prosecuted tte snt the
hr f.tc uud maker ustE!tlzcI1x VI tue aatno Stats
&II,'n the suit ls brought; 1has would bc the
n.r''ssary sonsctlu. nee. and The question recurs
II lIlt ttueM thA uilKstaEe OF tile htantc mean by
& 'tncsa INC suit might have hcrn prosecuted IN
taul court, tt no R6sgu1nrnt had ls.cn made.
| think IL tie Tine TINT the suit wss
trretuted, 80 TINT If il npieals then thai the
s1rnur conid haze maintained the suit II no as-
e:snnrnt ha, tcn 1natle, the assignee being cit
,Hu ii another state, cau .naiutain tic suit.
The only as;hoEtit 1nentloned contnIy to this
j. Mc1ean, 1884, and Fry '. Rosscall '. McLeau.lG
! :>atnt llsai those two cases seem to imrly that
tl, question H. what IL the st1tus OF the Assgnor
1T Tie time lie hc11 The c14,.r in detiu, on the
l,ulntssorJ note; hut these cases arc not
IN M TUE s1ew of tass Clause II the eieyens s1i
sction Of thu Judicial oct 1t should be Observed,
10 the The distinction e,w een the &tatu* oi lie as
eicner a. the ii1.le lie WAS the OF the note,
md at the tine The suit was brought: II does moi
tcem that poEat WIS u al considered y the Court,
order that tho proper Discrimination might have
1ccn u1ade, md therefore, cannot say hut that
the Intention Of The Court had cen directed TO
the point which Is now presented, il might hare
us.7t different language frou that we lind IN the
in this case, p1mis that these two parties we're
cit1zeas uf llnols the maker and the payce- The
plaintiff, citizen of yeEmon, sues IN this Court
Now what fs hts atatue: FuriA@e there hal been
10 ass1 g1imelt .i tt5 rronis,ozy note 1t oppeats
nron 'ne isee of The declaration that The assixnot
tanned an oc,tm this Court, Ia The contingency
7lanel He islyrrF;1l to 1T, citizen OF the State
tf Missouri 50 that the language OF the act, unless
II no ass4:7lment had been male, applies TO
hin. II e!t,'ot te pretended that when
nosc Is nahe h, citizen Of one State to clti-
zen Of Inc E.4{3c Etlfc. ihnt the n1yee cannot
H1ose 70 another State and a1tel, he has 60 re-
tn asd lsos elssn ,Sn.t 1sseo her brnx r ~
District where he rcsls!e9- That scarcely be
t:ai1aed: - tta1 'hc maker and the paycc both
tf.c citizens u Illinois 1t the time this mote was
.yto Missouri, hs cer1aln1! could have main.
i Cout1 ri Jhe district IN which the maker
So this plaintiff can maintain the action
'rlnlon EnW ayen uecosds with one reported
~: years a;flce-1laxtcs '. HAsch. eMelcans
= further illustration may be suggested by con-
sheEsnf. tile tt11e hf the maturity Uf the note If
The tnakcr nl~9 payee Of the note saed on in ,his
ease were 10th cttizcns Of Illinois when It It vas vas
I,aGc, then TIE rEr Of the assignee to cue in th!s
rourt would depend, II / understand the argument
or the defetstsnt uron the fact whether the payee
WIS Il citizen q, Missouri when the note uAtuye.i
..nn se wa tin. u~ner, and 20 himself had the
right ia sue. tn other words, the11ycc must have
Et'tr 10 matt,rt before assignment for both mpst
<'rur to cn:i:ae the asssgn0r to sue In this cou1-
Aud this tttiitk demonstrates the error Of the
t1c maturity # the Hnte aud after the assignment
Itt:Anc ctta.n OF lliipo,s nj the commencement
~ ., .ar saa =! thc nssgnee the court would s
, t.A.e Iuils!lts'ou Whereas according to mr. read
1nS oa NC rta:'e, >be fact this, the asssignor Of
ne,t Ii ot IT, ., s,zen o. llsno at TIE comnsace
o1 the Court ~ A~ '~-
Difeh1rpof-John l}alton- u{ CbIca1p. Tey1 pills.
onEs, as Andosst @ @lIc1r, County. ''' '''' -
Mendntn, lASalle County. 'n "