Armstrong v. Trautman

CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
Citation36 F. 275
Decision Date31 May 1888
PartiesARMSTRONG v. TRAUTMAN et al.

36 F. 275

ARMSTRONG
v.
TRAUTMAN et al.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

May 31, 1888


[36 F. 276]

JACKSON, J.

This case is before the court on the motion of defendants Frank Haffner and Christian Haffner to dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction in this court to entertain the suit. The motion is based on two grounds, viz.: First, that the petitioner is a citizen of the same state with the defendants; and, secondly, that the amount claimed (being only $1,333.58) is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court under the act of March 3, 1887. The petition shows that David Armstrong, a citizen of the Southern district of Ohio, is the duly appointed and qualified receiver of the Fidelity National Bank, of Cincinnati, Ohio, which was lately a corporation organized under the banking laws of the United States, and became the holder and owner of a certain check for $1,333.58, having date June 20, 1887, drawn by Trautman & Fischer on the German National Bank of Cincinnati to the order of the defendants Frank and Christian Haffner, under the firm name of F. & C. Haffner, and by them indorsed; that said check, which was the property of said Fidelity National Bank and a part of its assets which came into the possession of said receiver by virtue of his appointment, was duly presented at said German National Bank for payment; that the same was not paid; and that said drawers and indorsers had due notice thereof. The question presented by the motion of the defendants Frank and Christian Haffner to dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction is whether, under the act of March 3, 1887, a receiver of a national bank may maintain a suit in this court, without reference to the citizenship of the parties and of the amount involved, to recover a claim or demand due the national bank, whose assets have been transferred or assigned to him by operation of law under his appointment.

Prior to the act of March 3, 1887, this was not an open question. It was well settled by several decisions on the circuit, under the act of March 3, 1875, and prior acts, that receivers of national banks, being officers of the United States, could maintain such actions without regard to the citizenship of the parties or the amount involved in the suit. Frelinghuysen v. Baldwin, 12 F. 395; Price v. Abbott, 17 F. 506. In this last case the subject was fully reviewed by Mr. Justice GRAY, and the jurisdiction of the circuit court was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Pufahl v. Parks Estate, No. 18
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1936
    ...in the instant case. 5 Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 Wall. 498, 19 L.Ed. 476; Price v. Abbott (C.C.) 17 F. 506; Armstrong v. Trautman (C.C.) 36 F. 275; Brown v. Smith (C.C.) 88 F. 565; Stephens v. Bernays (D.C.) 41 F. 401, affirmed (C.C.) 44 F. 642; Rankin v. Herod (C.C.) 140 F. 661. See, also, Unit......
  • Blank v. Bitker, No. 8215.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • June 10, 1943
    ...up the affairs of insolvent national banking associations. Schram v. Perkins, D.C., 38 F. Supp. 404; cf. Armstrong v. Trautman, C.C., 36 F. 275; Dinan v. First National Bank of Detroit, 6 Cir., 117 F.2d 459; Pufahl, Receiver, v. Estate of Parks, 299 U. S. 217, 225, 57 S.Ct. 151, 81 L.Ed. 13......
  • Altman v. McClintock, No. 1653.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Wyoming
    • May 21, 1927
    ...Gray, on circuit, in Price v. Abbott C. C. 17 F. 506, and by Mr. Justice Jackson, then Circuit Judge, in Armstrong v. Trautman C. C. 36 F. 275. And see Porter v. Sabin, 149 U. S. 473, 479 13 S. Ct. 1008, 37 L. Ed. 815; Platt v. Beach, 2 Ben. 303 Fed. Cas. No. 11,215; Frelinghuysen v. Baldwi......
  • Guarantee Co. of North Dakota v. Hanway, 1,318.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 9, 1900
    ...U.S. 125, 19 Sup.Ct. 628, 43 L.Ed. 920; In re Chetwood, 165 U.S. 443, 458, 459, 17 Sup.Ct. 385, 41 L.Ed. 782; Armstrong v. Trautman (C.C.) 36 F. 275; Grant v. Bank (C.C.) 47 F. 673. The same reasons bring actions by or against a shareholders' agent under the same rule. He is chosen under th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Pufahl v. Parks Estate, No. 18
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1936
    ...in the instant case. 5 Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 Wall. 498, 19 L.Ed. 476; Price v. Abbott (C.C.) 17 F. 506; Armstrong v. Trautman (C.C.) 36 F. 275; Brown v. Smith (C.C.) 88 F. 565; Stephens v. Bernays (D.C.) 41 F. 401, affirmed (C.C.) 44 F. 642; Rankin v. Herod (C.C.) 140 F. 661. See, also, Unit......
  • Blank v. Bitker, No. 8215.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • June 10, 1943
    ...up the affairs of insolvent national banking associations. Schram v. Perkins, D.C., 38 F. Supp. 404; cf. Armstrong v. Trautman, C.C., 36 F. 275; Dinan v. First National Bank of Detroit, 6 Cir., 117 F.2d 459; Pufahl, Receiver, v. Estate of Parks, 299 U. S. 217, 225, 57 S.Ct. 151, 81 L.Ed. 13......
  • Altman v. McClintock, No. 1653.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Wyoming
    • May 21, 1927
    ...Gray, on circuit, in Price v. Abbott C. C. 17 F. 506, and by Mr. Justice Jackson, then Circuit Judge, in Armstrong v. Trautman C. C. 36 F. 275. And see Porter v. Sabin, 149 U. S. 473, 479 13 S. Ct. 1008, 37 L. Ed. 815; Platt v. Beach, 2 Ben. 303 Fed. Cas. No. 11,215; Frelinghuysen v. Baldwi......
  • Guarantee Co. of North Dakota v. Hanway, 1,318.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 9, 1900
    ...U.S. 125, 19 Sup.Ct. 628, 43 L.Ed. 920; In re Chetwood, 165 U.S. 443, 458, 459, 17 Sup.Ct. 385, 41 L.Ed. 782; Armstrong v. Trautman (C.C.) 36 F. 275; Grant v. Bank (C.C.) 47 F. 673. The same reasons bring actions by or against a shareholders' agent under the same rule. He is chosen under th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT