Mullen v. Torrance

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MARSHALL
• Citation: Mullen v. Torrance, 22 U.S. 537, 6 L.Ed. 154, 9 Wheat. 537 (1824)
• Decision Date: 01 February 1824
• Parties: MULLEN and others v. TORRANCE

22 U.S. 537

6 L.Ed. 154

9 Wheat. 537

MULLEN and others v. TORRANCE.

February Term, 1824

ERROR to the District Court of Mississippi.

An endorsee of a promissory note, who resides in a different State, may sue, in the Circuit Court, 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 where the suit is brought against a remote endorser, and the plaintiff, in his declaration, traces his title through an intermediate endorser, he must show that this intermediate endorser could have sustained his action in the Circuit Court.

A plea to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court must show that the parties were citizens of the same State, at the time the action was brought, and not merely at the time of the plea pleaded. The jurisdiction depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought; and after it is once vested, it cannot be ousted by a subsequent change of residence of either of the parties.

March 6th.

This cause was argued by Mr. Jones,^a for

the plaintiffs, and by Mr. Rankin,^b for the defendant.

March 10th.

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.

The...