US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

The warrants and orders sued on in this case were payable to the order of Matthew Carr, deceased, who was a citizen of the Louisiana. They were assets of his estate, and the plaintiff in error acquired title to them through a judicial sale made by the sheriff of the Parish of Concordia on the 22d day of May, 1868, under authority of an order of the probate court of said parish having the administration of said estate. The plaintif in the suit was at the date of his said purchase, and at the date of filing his original petition herein, a citizen of the State of Missouri, and the defendant was a citizen of the State of Louisiana. Held that the plaintiff came within the restriction of § 1 of the Act of March 3, 1875:

"Nor shall any circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit founded on contract in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in said 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,"

and that the circuit court below correctly held that jurisdiction could not be sustained.

This was a suit brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana by William C. Glass, a citizen of the State of Missouri, against the Parish of Concordia to recover on certain warrants or orders for levee work, and, having been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, came to this Court on the following certificate:

"This cause was tried at the present term of the court solely on the defendant's exception to the jurisdiction of the court, and it appearing from the jurisdictional facts alleged in plaintiff's petition, admitted to be true by said exception, that the warrants and orders sued on were payable to the order of Matthew Carr, deceased, who was a citizen of the State of Louisiana, and were assets of his estate, and that the plaintiff acquired title thereto through a judicial sale made by the sheriff of the Parish of Concordia on the 22d day of May, 1868, under authority of an order of the probate court of said parish having the administration of said estate; that plaintiff

Page 176 U. S. 208

at the date of his said purchase and at the date of filing his original petition herein, on the second day of November, 1877, was a citizen of the State of Missouri, and that the defendant was a citizen of the State of Louisiana. Under the state of facts, the only question at issue upon the trial of said exception was whether the case, for the purpose of jurisdiction, comes within the following restriction imposed by section 1 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1875;"

"Nor shall any circuit or district court 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."

"And the court, for the reasons set forth in the written opinion hereto annexed and made part hereof, has this day maintained the defendant's exception to the jurisdiction of this court, and dismissed plaintiff's petition, with leave to amend, if so advised, and without prejudice, and now grants this certificate for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to obtain a review by the Supreme Court of said jurisdictional question under the fifth section of the Act of Congress approved March 3, 1891."