Mo. River Tel. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Sioux City.

• Citation: 74 Ill. 217,1874 WL 9111
• Parties: MISSOURI RIVER TELEGRAPH COMPANYv.FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SIOUX CITY.
• Decision Date: 30 September 1874
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

74 Ill. 217

1874 WL 9111 (Ill.)

MISSOURI RIVER TELEGRAPH COMPANY

v.FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SIOUX CITY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1874.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. BENNETT, KRETZINGER & VEEDER, for the appellant.

Messrs. TENNEYS, FLOWER & ABERCROMBIE, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

It appears that appellee is a corporation organized under the banking law enacted by the congress of the United States, and is located in the State of Iowa; and appellant, who sues for the use of Percy and Daggitt, is also a foreign corporation, organized and transacting business under the laws of Iowa. The first count of the declaration avers that appellee, in violation of the laws of congress, received from appellant interest over and above the rate allowed by the laws of Iowa, at divers times, the sum of five hundred dollars, whereby, under the act of congress appellee became and was liable to pay to appellant double that sum, amounting to one thousand dollars. The common counts were also added. To this declaration defendant filed a demurrer, which the court sustained, and rendered judgment for defendant, and this appeal is prosecuted.

It is urged in affirmance that the court below has no jurisdiction to try a cause of the character shown in the first count of the declaration; that it is for the recovery of a penalty imposed by the laws of another State, or of congress, or both, and inasmuch as courts never execute the criminal or penal laws of another State or government, that the rule would be violated to hold that this penal law may be executed by our courts. There can be no pretense that any law of this State has been violated, as it is averred that the transaction occurred beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts in this State. And it is equally true that both the governments of the United States and Iowa are wholly independent of this State. They severally have all of the attributes of sovereignty essential to the enactment and enforcement of laws for the government of their citizens within the limits of their constitutions. And in accordance with long settled rules of law, this State cannot enforce their criminal or penal laws. See Sherman v. Gassett, 4 Gilm. 521. But the jurisdiction is claimed under the fifty seventh section of the act of congress to provide a national currency, etc. (13 Statutes at Large, p. 117), which provides that all suits, actions and proceedings arising under that act, may be had in the United States courts or in “any State, county or municipal court in the county or city in which said association is located, having jurisdiction in similar cases.” It is manifest that this language confers no jurisdiction on any court in this State to try this case, for the obvious reason that the appellant's bank or association is not located in this State. The jurisdiction attempted to be conferred is only on the State courts, the county courts or municipal courts in the State in which the bank is situated. By the plain meaning of the language of this section, congress intended only to confer jurisdiction upon the State courts of Iowa, the county court of Woodbury county, and the municipal court of Sioux city, if they had jurisdiction of similar cases under the laws of that State. The effort to confer jurisdiction was not on such courts generally, but simply upon the courts in the jurisdiction in which the delinquent bank might be located. The language is so plain that it will not admit of construction. The clear and unequivocal meaning of the law would be violated to hold otherwise, and it is manifest that the Superior Court does not answer to the description of any one of the courts enumerated by the act, and hence congress neither intended to, nor did it confer jurisdiction in this case upon that court.

It is urged for reversal that our courts entertain jurisdiction in cases where these banks are parties either plaintiff or defendant, as we do with individuals, whether resident or non-resident. This is true, but the jurisdiction that our courts exercise in such cases results from the power conferred by our constitution and laws, and not by any means from acts of congress. All of their jurisdiction comes from that, and not from a foreign source. They are brought into being and exist alone by virtue of our organic law. And the same is true of the United States courts, as they derive all of their powers from the federal constitution. We presume no one has ever conceived the novel idea that a State could, by legislative enactment, confer any power or jurisdiction on the federal courts or officers. Nor can it be imagined that any one would suppose that if such an effort were made, and the federal courts should refuse to exercise such jurisdiction, there is the least shadow of power by mandamus or otherwise to coerce obedience to the requirements of such a law.

If we could imagine that a law of that character could be passed, does any one believe that the federal...