Hammond v. Cleaveland
| Decision Date | 25 February 1885 |
| Citation | 23 F. 1 |
| Parties | HAMMOND v. CLEAVELAND. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Henry Ach, for plaintiff.
O. F Paxton, for defendant.
This action is brought by the plaintiff, a citizen of California against the defendant, a citizen of Oregon, to recover the sum of $3,093.36. The action is brought on three distinct demands or causes of action arising out of contract, which by section 91 of the Oregon Code of Civil Procedure may be united in one complaint. The first demand is for $1,136.85 the agreed price of goods sold to the defendant by the plaintiff; the second one is for $1,648, the agreed price of goods sold to the defendant by the firm of Greenbaum, Sachs & Freeman, citizens of California, and by the latter assigned to the plaintiff; and the third one is for $308.29, the agreed price of goods sold to the defendant by the firm of Murphy, Grant & Co., citizens of California, and by the latter assigned by the plaintiff; for the aggregate of which sums the plaintiff asks judgment. The defendant demurs to the statement containing the last cause of action, for that 'the court has no jurisdiction of the matter thereof. ' On the argument of the demurrer, counsel for the defendant cited and relied on the clause of section 1 of the judiciary act of 1875 (18 St. 470) which reads:
'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.'
The exposition of this clause, by counsel for the defendant, is to the effect that, as the assignor could not have maintained a suit on the contract in question to enforce the payment of a sum less than $500, therefore the plaintiff cannot as assignee thereof. And it must be admitted that the proposition is not without plausibility. But, in construing this restriction on the assignee's right to sue reference must be had to the manifest aim and object of the provision. The jurisdiction of this court, so far as the same depends on the amount in controversy, is prescribed by an earlier clause in the same section, which in effect limits such jurisdiction to cases where 'the matter in dispute' exceeds the sum or value of $500. But the jurisdiction of the court may also depend on the citizenship of the parties to the suit, and the provision in question is intended to prevent a party to a non-negotiable contract, who cannot, for want of such citizenship, sue his debtor thereon in the national c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Paper Co. v. Southwick, 5832.
...Morrision, 178 U. S. 262, 267, 20 S. Ct. 869, 44 L. Ed. 1061. 3 The Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 470), was construed in Hammond v. Cleaveland (C. C. 1885) 23 F. 1. The Act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 552) was construed in Bernheim et al. v. Birnbaum et al. (C. C. 1887) 30 F. 885. The Act o......
-
Cashmere Valley Bank v. Pacific Fruit & Produce Co.
...443. 9 McClure v. Campbell, 42 Wash. 252, 84 P. 825. 10 Heffner v. Gwynne-Treadwell Cotton Co., 8 Cir., 160 F. 635, 638; Hammond v. Cleaveland, C.C.Or., 23 F. 1, 2, 3. 11 Nickelson v. Nestles Milk Products Corporation, 5 Cir., 107 F.2d 17, 18. 12 Nickelson v. Nestles Milk Products Corporati......
-
Bowden v. Burnham
... ... have maintained separate suits thereon, because the claim of ... each was less than $2,000 in amount. Stanley v ... Board, 15 F. 483; Hammond v. Cleaveland, 23 F ... 1; Bernheim v. Birnbaum, 30 F. 885; Chase v ... Roller-Mills Co., 56 F. 625 ... Barnes, ... Brown & Denton ... ...
-
Easton v. Lockhart
... ... will not fulfill the terms upon which the money is to be ... paid. 22 A. & E. Enc. L. 1036; Kerr v. Hammond, 25 ... S.E. 337; Tyler v. Plutzs, 20 S.W. 256; Veeder ... v. McMurry, 70 Ia. 118; Plummer v. Kelly, 7 ... N.D. 88; McPherson v. Fargo, ... ...