JOHN A. GIBSON AND KINCHEN A. MARTIN, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
BEVERLY CHEW, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Beverly Chew, as endorsee of a promissory note made between Mississippi citizens, sued in federal Circuit Court to recover on the note, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction over suits by assignees of promissory notes unless the original parties could have brought suit in federal court, absent the assignment exception for foreign bills of exchange.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Wayne delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi, by the defendant in error, as the endorsee of a promissory'note, made in Mississippi, of which the plaintiff in error, Martin, was the payee, and the plaintiff, Gibson, the maker; both maker'and payee being citizens of the state of Mississippi when the note was made.
The jurisdiction of. the Court is denied,, and the plea should have been sustained in the-Court below, as the Circuit Courts of the United States, have not cognisance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note, or other chose in action in favour of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such Court to recover the said contents, if no assignment had been made, except.in cases of foreign bills of exchange. See the eleventh section of the act to establish the judicial Courts of. the United States, 1 Story’s Laws, 53.
The judgment of the Court below is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marshall v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 16 How. 314 (U.S. 1853)
-
Parker v. Ormsby, 141 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1891)…ry note payable to order, unless it appeared, affirmatively, that it could have been maintained in that 'court in the name [*85] of the original payee. Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8, 11; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 46; Gibson v. Chew, 16 Pet. 315, 316; Coffee v. Planters’ Bank of Tennessee, 13 How. 183, 187; Morgan’s Executor v. Gay, 19 Wall. 81, 82. There were these recognized exceptions to that general rule in its application to promissory notes: 1. That an endorsee could sue the endorser…
-
Morgan's Executor v. Gay, 19 Wall. 81 (U.S. 1873)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence