Case Name: DELISLE vs. GAINES
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1817-03
Citations: 4 Mart. (o.s.) 666
Docket Number: 
Parties: DELISLE vs. GAINES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Martin (Louisiana Term Reports)
Volume: 4
Pages: 666–672

Head Matter:
DELISLE vs. GAINES.
If the cause of action is stated to arise on the Bayou St. John, the defendant cannot succeed on the plea that it is not shewn to arise within the parish of New-Orleans.
An appeal will not be dismissed, because the authority of the person who signed it for does not appear, on the record.
Appeal from the court of the parish and city of New-Orleans.
The plaintiff commenced this action, in order to compel the defendant to account for and pay one moiety of the profits made by navigating a schooner the property of the plaintiff, of which the defendant was master, upon a contract by which it was agreed, that the net proceeds of freight gained by the schooner should be equally divided between the owner and master.
If a note be indorsed over, and the indorsee not being able to recover its amount, return it to his endorser, the latter will recover on it, altho' there be no re-endorsement.
East'n. District.
March 1817.
The action was grounded on the original agreement between the parties. A promissory note given by the defendant to the plaintiff was given in evidence, which as appeared by the record, had been regularly indorsed to one Alpuente. The indorsement, according to the evidence of the indorsee, was made for the sole purpose of enabling him to recover the amount of the note from the drawer, without any intention of transferring any interest to the indorsee, who being unable to collect any part of it, returned it to the plaintiff.
Hennen for the defendant.
The first point to be disposed of this case is a plea to the jurisdiction of the court. The parish court, in which the suit was instituted, is a court of limited jurisdiction, as clearly appears from the act of the legislature by which it was constituted, Laws 1818, 115, now it is a principle well established that, in courts of a limited jurisdiction, the cause must appear on the record to be within the jurisdiction. 9 Mod. 95, Lord. Conynsby’s case. And the cause of action must be expressly alleged to have arisen within the jurisdiction of the court, 1 Wash. 81. Therefore, on the same principle, in actions brought in the circuit courts of the United States, which are courts of a limited jurisdiction, having cognizance only of some cases which are specially circumstanced, it is necessary to set forth on the record the facts or circumstances which give jurisdiction, and the omission of them will be error. 3 Dall. 382. Bingham vs. Cabot, 4 Dall. 7 Turner vs. Enrille. Id. 8, Turner vs. Bank of North America. Id, 13, Mossman vs. Higginson. 1 Cran. 343. Abercrombie vs. Duplessis. 2, Cran. 9, Wood vs. Wagnon. Id. 126, Cashon vs. Van Noorden, 4, Cran. 46, Montrelet vs. Murray. From these authorities which cannot be controverted, it clearly follows that the parish court had no jurisdiction on the case, as it is not alleged that the cause of action rose within its jurisdiction and the petition should consequently be dismissed.
The plaintiff has no right however to recover in this action, because he took a note for the amount of his claim and indorsed it over to a third person; and the bare possession of that note, without a re-indorsement of it to him cannot entitle him to recover on it.
The evidence moreover did not warrant the judge in giving judgment for the amount which he awarded.
Ellery for the plaintiff.
There is enough alleged in the petition, to shew that the cause of action arose within the jurisdistion of the parish court; for it is stated that the contract was made at the Bayou of St. John, which is known to be within the jurisdiction on the parish court; and under the liberal practice of our courts, this will answer the objection of the defendant.
The indorsee of the note was certainly a competent witness to prove for what purpose the note was indorsed to him by the plaintiff. He is not produced to establish any interest in it in his own favour, but to destroy all right to it in himself; and therefore must be the best witness that could be produced for that purpose, as he testifies against his own interest.
In actions of this kind when the defendant is called upon to render an account of a partnership concern and neglects to do it; the court should always be liberal in their allowances against him: it is in his power to shew where there is any incorrectness and if he does not, every thing is to be presumed against him. The evidence however warranted the court below in the judgment rendered.
There was no legal bond given for costs, the surety executed the bond for himself and the prin cipal and there is no evidence on the record of this authority.

Opinion:
Mathews, J.
delivered the opinion of the court. Two questions are raised for the consideration and determination of this court. 1, Under the circumstances of this case, is a redelivery of the note to the original payee, without any regular transfer by a new indorsement, sufficient to authorise the plaintiff to use it in the parish court as evidence of his claim against the defendant? 2. Is the evidence in the cause sufficient to authorise the judgment of the court to the full amount for which it was rendered?
I. It is insisted by the counsel of the appellant, that as the parish court is from its organisation, a court of limited jurisdiction, it cannot regularly take cognisance of cases, unless where the plaintiff brings himself within its jurisdiction, by alleging the cause of action to be such as appears to have been contemplated by the act of the legislature, which created that court and fixed the extent of its judicial powers.
II. The appellee's counsel farther shews, that security has not been given for the appeal, as the law requires, and therefore it ought to be dismissed.
Before we proceed to the examination of the merits of this case, these two preliminary objections must be disposed of.
As to the jurisdiction of the court of the parish, and city of New-Orleans, it is expressed in the act of 1813, made to define the jurisdiction of that court, "that it shall consist of one judge, learned in the law, who shall have and exercise, within the limits of said parish, a jurisdiction concurrent with that of the first district, in all civil cases originating with the said parish." According to this definition and grant of power, it might be doubted whether that court could properly take cognisance of any case unless something is alleged in the petition, by which the plaintiff shews the cause of action to have originated within the limits of the parish, a point not necessary to be settled in the present case. The contract is stated to have been made at the bayou St. John, a place known to be within the boundaries of the parish, which is in our opinion an allegation sufficiently setting forth the jurisdiction of the court, according to a fair construction of the law, allowing it to be necessary.
In relation to the security on the appeal, we are of opinion that the spirit and meaning of the law have been complied with.
Ellery for the plaintiff, Hennen, for the defendant.
We now come to the two questions which relate to the merits of the cause.
As to the first, we answer briefly that as the plaintiff founds his action on the original contract, and his fair title to the note is supported by evidence, it was properly admitted as evidence of his claim.
In relation to the second, altho' the full amount adjudged to the plaintiff does not appear to be proven to have been received by the defendant, yet as it is shown that the schooner performed several voyages to the amount adjudged, not accounted for by the defendant, the acting partner, we do not think that the judgment of the parish court ought on that account to be disturbed.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that it be affirmed with costs.