Court Opinion

ID: 8310100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 13:47:14.157021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:41.630457
License: Public Domain

Locke, J.,
(orally.) There is no allegation of the citizenship of the original owners of the paper sued on, and since jurisdiction must *354appear by affirmative allegations it is necessary that the foundation of the suit be a bill of exchange or a promissory note negotiable by the law-merchant. Its form at once precludes the idea that it is a bill of exchange, but it is claimed that it is a promissory note. It is not sufficient that it be a promissory note a's between the parties, or even negotiable under certain circumstances and with certain conditions, but it must be negotiable by the law-merchant. It must be a positive promise and agreement to pay the holder a sum certain at a given date, without detraction or conditions; an amount that is easily determinable from its own face without further search or inquiry. The character of the note must determine the question of jurisdiction, and the fact that the party suing is willing to waive certain of his rights under it, and sue on such a portion of the contract as might constitute a negotiable instrument, cannot give it.
It is apparent that the last clause in the note in suit contains conditional provisions, which might be still undetermined at its maturity, so that it could never bear upon its face a fully settled amount due, which fact is conclusive against its negotiability under the law-merchant, and consequently against the jurisdiction in a suit upon it.
The fact that the instrument is under seal has also been urged, which objection, in the light of Coe v. Cayuga Lake R. Co. 8 Fed. Rep. 535, would seem to be fatal; but the form and substance of the note so fully determines all questions that a consideration of anything further is unnecessary.
Motion to dismiss is granted.