Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/250/229/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:51:43+00:00

Document:
The allegations of the complaint determine the character of an action for the purpose of testing the jurisdiction of the district court to entertain it. P. 250 U. S. 231.
The life tenant of a fund, to secure the remaindermen, executed, with surety, a bond running to them, their executors, administrators, and assigns and conditioned for the preservation of the fund by him and payment to them upon his death. One of them assigned part of his remainder interest to a third person, who, after the death of the life tenant, brought an action on the bond against the life tenant's executor and the surety jointly, to recover in the amount of the assigned remainder interest. Held that the assignment of the remainder interest carried with it pro tanto the obligation of the bond, and that the action was one prosecuted by an assignee to recover on a chose in action. not cognizable by the district court, where the assignor and the defendants were citizens of the same state. Jud.Code, § 24. P. 250 U. S. 233. Brown v. Fletcher, 235 U. S. 589, distinguished.
"In this cause, I hereby certify that this writ of error is allowed solely, and that the order herein dismissing the complaint was based solely, on the ground that no jurisdiction of the district court existed; that this question has been determined by me on the following grounds:"
Henry Van Schaick, and this action is bases on such assignment; that Eugene Van Schaick was in his lifetime a citizen and resident of the State of New York, and both of the defendants are citizens and residents of the State of New York; that this suit could not have been prosecuted in this court upon said remainder interest and said bond if no such assignment had been made."
Van Schaick. The complaint avers demand of the $20,000 and interest, and prays judgment against the defendants.
The action thus appears to have been brought upon the assignment of Eugene Van Schaick, a citizen of New York, to the plaintiff, a corporation of Connecticut, against defendants, who were residents and citizens of New York. Eugene Van Schaick could not have maintained the suit in the federal court, being himself a citizen and resident of New York. This suit was an action at law upon the bond. It was against both the executor and the surety company. The surety company was liable at law only upon the bond. The complaint, fairly considered, shows that such was the real nature of the suit. It contained but a single cause of action, and prayed for joint judgment against the executor of Henry Van Schaick and the surety company. Henry Van Schaick was liable to Eugene Van Schaick upon the bond. Eugene Van Schaick assigned that obligation to the plaintiff to the extent of $20,000. That assignment carried with it the obligation of the surety company given to secure the faithful performance of the duty required of Henry Van Schaick. George v. Tate, 102 U. S. 564, 102 U. S. 571.
The defenses, if any, of the surety company against the claim in the hands of Eugene Van Schaick could have been urged against the plaintiff. We think the plaintiff was an assignee within the meaning of § 24, without formal assignment of the bond. Shoecraft v. Bloxham, 124 U. S. 730; Plant Investment Co. v. Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Ry. Co., 152 U. S. 71.
New York, the defendants being residents and citizens of New York. It was held that the suit to recover this interest in a trust estate was not a suit by an assignee within the meaning of § 24 of the Judicial Code. That suit, this Court held, was not a suit upon a chose in action, but was one to recover upon the conveyance of an alienable interest acquired from the owner in a trust estate. Such interests might be sued for in the federal courts when the requisite amount and diversity of citizenship exist. 235 U.S. 235 U. S. 598-599. But here, the case is different; the suit was upon the bond, the right to recover arising from the assignment of the interest of Eugene Van Schaick in the fund in the hands of Henry Van Schaick. It was not a suit to recover the interest of Eugene Van Schaick in the estate because of the wrongful conversion thereof by Henry Van Schaick. To such a suit the surety company would not be a proper party. It was, as we have stated, an action upon a single cause of action against the executor of the principal and the surety upon the contract evidenced by the bond. The right to such action was derived by assignment from Eugene Van Schaick, a citizen and resident of New York, and as he could not have sued in the federal court, his assignee, the plaintiff, could not, by reason of § 24 of the Judicial Code.

References: § 24
 v. 
 v. 
 § 24
 v. 
 v. 
 § 24
 § 24