Mullen v. Torrance

Decision Date01 February 1824
PartiesMULLEN and others v. TORRANCE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

The declaration in this cause contains two counts. The first is against the defendant, Torrance, as endorser of a promissory note, made by Spencer & Dunn, payable to Sylvester Dunn, and endorsed by him to the defendant, Torrance, by whom it was endorsed to H. J. Lowrie, and by him to the plaintiffs. The other count is, for money had and received by the defendant to the plaintiffs' use.

The declaration states the plaintiffs to be citizens of New-York, and the defendant to be a citizen of Mississippi, but is silent respecting the citizenship or residence of Lowrie, the immediate endorser of Torrance, through whom the plaintiffs trace their title to the money for which the suit is instituted.

The case of Young v. Bryan, (6 Wheat. Rep. 146.) has decided, that an endorsee who resides in a different State, may sue his immediate endorser, residing in the State in which the suit is brought, although that endorser be a resident of the same State with the maker of the note; but in this case the suit is brought against a remote endorser, and the plaintiffs, in their declaration, trace their title through an intermediate endorser without showing that this intermediate endorser could have sustained his action against the defendant in the Courts of the United States. The case of Turner v. The Bank of North America, (4 Dallas, 8.) has decided, that this count does not give the Court jurisdiction. But the count for money had and received to the use of the plaintiffs, being free from objection, it becomes necessary to look farther into the case.


To continue reading

Request your trial
482 cases
  • Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nelson, Case No. 20-cv-00211-MMA (AHG)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • June 24, 2020
    ...Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization , 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Mollan v. Torrance , 22 U.S. (9. Wheat.) 537, 538, 6 L.Ed. 154 (1824) ). Further, subject matter jurisdiction may be raised "at any stage of the litigation." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp. , 546 U.......
  • O.A. v. Trump
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 2, 2019
    ...court, subject matter jurisdiction "depends upon the state of things at the time the action is brought," Mollan v. Torrance , 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 537, 539, 6 L.Ed. 154 (1824) ; see also Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp. L.P. , 541 U.S. 567, 570–71, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866 (2004) ("[......
  • Smith v. Sperling
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • December 16, 1953
    ...1838, 12 Pet. 164, 37 U.S. 164, 171, 9 L.Ed. 1041; Dunn v. Clarke, 1834, 8 Pet. 1, 33 U.S. 1, 2, 8 L.Ed. 845; Mullen v. Torrance, 1824, 9 Wheat. 537, 22 U.S. 537, 538. It follows then that while the citizenship of the administrator at bar would have been a factor if he had originally brough......
  • Rodriguez v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • May 28, 1954
    ...143, 25 S.Ct. 616, 49 L.Ed. 986; Parker v. Overman, 1855, 18 How. 137, 141, 59 U.S. 137, 141, 15 L.Ed. 318; Mullen v. Torrance, 1824, 9 Wheat. 537, 538, 22 U.S. 537, 538, 6 L.Ed. 154; (3) that as ground for removal the petition asserts that "plaintiff's cause of action arises under the * * ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Zalma on Property and Casualty Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...principle that “the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought.” Mollan v. Torrance, 22 U.S. 537, 539 (1824) (Marshall, C. J.); see Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., 484 U.S. 49, 69 (1987) (opinion of Scalia, J.); ......
  • Chapter 27-3 Removal on Diversity of Citizenship Grounds
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Texas Commercial Causes of Action Claims Title Chapter 27 Pleading Removal and Remand
    • Invalid date is governed by that condition, as it was at the commencement of the suit.'") (internal citation omitted).[47] Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 6 L. Ed. 154 (1824); Clarke v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164, 171, 9 L. Ed. 1041 (1838); Wichita Railroad & Light Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Kans......

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