BROCK
v.
NORTHWESTERN FUEL COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this 1889 case, the Supreme Court reversed a judgment in a contract suit brought by assignees against Northwestern Fuel Company because the federal Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction under the 1875 Act, which prohibited such courts from hearing suits by assignees unless the original assignor could have brought the suit. The Court held that the record failed to affirmatively establish that the original contracting party, a coal company, could have sued in federal court, as all parties appeared to be Iowa citizens, making diversity jurisdiction unavailable.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Harlan stated the case as above reported and delivered the opinion of the court.
The act of 1875 declares that no Circuit or District Court shall have “cognizance of any suit founded on contract in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover thereon if no assignment had been made, except in cases of promissory notes negotiable by the' law merchant and bills of exchange.” 18 Stat. 470. It does not appear that the What Cheer Land and Coal Company, the plaintiffs’ assignor, could' have brought suit on the contract in question, if no assignment had been made. The record does not show of what State it is a corporation. The allegation that it was “ doing business in the State of Iowa ” does not necessarily import that it was created by the laws of that State. But if that allegation were held sufficient to show it was an Iowa corporation, the result would be the same, because, in that case, it would appear that the parties to the original contract weré all citizens of Iowa, and consequently that the assignor could not have sued the defendants in the Circuit Court of the United States.
The judgment is reversed upon the ground that it does not appear, affirmatively, from the record that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 588, and. the cause is remanded for further proceedings in. accordance with law.
jReversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nw. Fuel Co. v. Brock, 139 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1891)
-
Thames & Mersey Marine Ins. Co. v. United States, 237 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1915)
-
Kolze v. Hoadley, 200 U.S. 76 (U.S. 1906)…had been made. Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8; Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537; Bradley, v. Rhines’ Administrator, 8 Wall. 393; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694, 702; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 649; Brock v. Northwestern Fuel Co., 130 U. S. 341. 4. That a.suit may be maintained between the immediate parties to a promissory note as indorser and indorsee, provided the requisite diversity of citizenship appears as between them, or upon a new contract arising subsequently to the execution of…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence