Bangs v. Loveridge

• Decision Date: 27 March 1894
• Citation: 60 F. 963
• Parties: BANGS et al. v. LOVERIDGE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

60 F. 963

BANGS et al. v. LOVERIDGE.

United States Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

March 27, 1894

F. C Woolman, for complainants.

Vredenburgh & Garretson, for defendant.

GREEN District Judge.

This bill was filed to enforce, if possible, the payment by the defendant, as administrator of Henry Loveridge, deceased, of the sum of $2,000 with arrears of interest, alleged to have been loaned by the complainants to Henry Love ridge in his lifetime. It seems from the allegations in the bill of complaint that in August, 1881, Henry Loveridge borrowed of the complainants the sum of $2,000, and as an inducement to the complainants to make the loan, and to secure the payment thereof, agreed with the complainants to make, execute, and deliver to them a mortgage upon certain real property at Orange, in this state, which he claimed to own; that in fact Loveridge did not, at the time he made the agreement, own or hold the title to any property at Orange, and therefore did not fulfill his agreement; that nothing seems to have been done by the complainants in the matter until May 1 1891,--nearly ten years after the making of the loan,--Henry Loveridge having, in the mean time, died, when they filed with the present defendant, who had been appointed administrator of Henry Loveridge, a claim, duly verified, for the sum due. This claim the administrator refused to pay, and so notified the complainants, upon the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations, more than six years having elapsed since the money had been borrowed, and the promise to secure the payment of the same by a deed of mortgage had been made. The complainants then filed their bill of complaint in this court, setting up the facts as stated, alleging fraud in the inducing statements of Loveridge, and praying that the defendant 'be directed to pay from the funds in his possession belonging to the estate of Henry Loveridge, deceased, the full amount of said loan with interest from August 31, 1881.' To this bill of complaint the defendant has filed a demurrer.

The first question raised by the demurrer goes to the jurisdiction of the court. The defendant insists that there is no proper allegation in the bill showing that the suit is between citizens of different states. This objection is well taken. The complainants describe themselves as citizens and residents of Massachusetts, but they make no allegation whatever as to the citizenship, nor, for that matter, the residence even, of the defendant. They do allege, indeed that the defendant's intestate, Henry Loveridge, was at the time of the transaction referred to, and at the time of his death, a resident and citizen of New Jersey; but such allegation does not confer jurisdiction upon this court. The test of jurisdictional authority is to be found in the citizenship of the parties who are actually before the court; and, if either of such parties sue or is sued in a representative capacity, his own citizenship, and not the citizenship of him whom he represents, is the determining factor. Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172. As the sole ground for the jurisdiction of this court in the present case is based upon diversity of citizenship, the failure to spread upon the record averments of facts necessary to show such diversity is fatal upon demurrer. It is possible, however, that it lies in the power of the complainants to cure this defect in their case by amendment.

I will therefore consider the next ground of demurrer, which is that it appears upon the face of the bill that the debt in question is barred by the statute of limitations. The loan which is the basis of this suit was made in August, 1881. No demand for payment seems to have been made until May, 1891. There is no allegation in the bill that Henry Loveridge, in his lifetime, ever promised a payment after the loan was made. The statute of New Jersey provides ...