Sere and Laralde v. Pitot and Others
Decision Date | 01 February 1810 |
Citation | 3 L.Ed. 240,6 Cranch 332,10 U.S. 332,6 Cranch 322 |
Parties | SERE AND LARALDE v. PITOT AND OTHERS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This suit was brought in the court of the United States for the Orleans territory, by the plaintiffs, who are aliens, and syndics or assignees of a trading company composed of citizens of that territory, who have become insolvent. The defendants are citizens of the territory, and have pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court. Their plea was sustained, and the cause now comes on to be heard on a writ of error to that judgment.
Two objections are made to the jurisdiction of the district court.
1. That the suit is brought by the assignees of a chosein action, in a case where it could not have been prosecuted, if no assignment had been made.
2. That the district court cannot entertain jurisdiction, because the defendants are not citizens of any state.
The first objection rests on the 11th section of the judicial act, which declares 'that no district or circuit court shall have cognisance of any suit to cover 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.'
The plaintiffs are admitted to be the assignees of a chose in action; but it is contended that they are not within the meaning of the provision which has been cited, because this is a suit or cash, bills and notes, generally, by persons to whom the law transfers them, and not by such an assignee as is contemplated in the judicial act. The words of the act are said to apply obviously to assignments made by the party...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hueter v. Kruse
...and a valid Act void." Nat'l Bank v. Cnty. of Yankton , 101 U.S. 129, 133, 25 L.Ed. 1046 (1880) ; see also Sere v. Pitot , 10 U.S. 332, 336-37, 6 Cranch 332, 3 L.Ed. 240 (1810) ; Am. Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton , 26 U.S. 511, 542-43, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828).These territories and ......
-
National Mut Ins Co of District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co Inc
...of the 1789 Act, iterated in his later dictum, Corporation of New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91, 94, 4 L.Ed. 44; cf. Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch 332, 336, 3 L.Ed. 240, has been consistently adhered to in judicial interpretation of later congressional grants of jurisdiction.3 And, by accretion,......
-
Polychrome Intern. Corp. v. Krigger
...authority over the people of the Territories and all the departments of the territorial governments."); Sere v. Pitot, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch.) 332, 336, 3 L.Ed. 240 (1810) ("we find Congress possessing and exercising the absolute and undisputed power of governing and legislating for the territo......
-
Kleppe v. New Mexico
...States, 195 U.S. 138, 149, 24 S.Ct. 808, 813, 49 L.Ed. 128 (1904); United States v. Gratiot, supra, 14 Pet., at 537; Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch 332, 336-337, 3 L.Ed. 240 (1810). See also Vermilya-Brown Co. v. Connell, 335 U.S. 377, 381, 69 S.Ct. 140, 142, 93 L.Ed. 76 (1948). And even over publ......