Rollins v. Chaffee County

• Decision Date: 26 March 1888
• Citation: 34 F. 91
• Parties: ROLLINS v. CHAFFEE COUNTY. BARNUM v. CUSTER COUNTY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

34 F. 91

ROLLINS v. CHAFFEE COUNTY.

BARNUM v. CUSTER COUNTY.

United States Circuit Court, D. Colorado.

March 26, 1888

At Law. On demurrer to complaint.

COURTS-- FEDERAL JURISDICTION-- ACTIONS ON COUNTY WARRANTS.

Under act Cong. 1887, (24 St. 553,) Sec. 1, providing that the federal courts shall not have jurisdiction of any action on any promissory note or chose in action, except on negotiable securities payable to bearer, and made by a corporation, by an assignee, or a subsequent holder, if the instrument be payable to bearer, unless such suit might have been brought in such court if no assignment or transfer had been made, the circuit court has no jurisdiction of an action by an assignee on a county warrant payable to the order of a person named therein, and passing only by indorsement, in the absence of averment that the assignor was qualified to sue in this court, but has jurisdiction of an action by the holder on one payable to bearer, such being a negotiable security made by a corporation.

Teller & Orahood, for plaintiffs.

G. H Hartinstim, for Chaffee county.

Hugh Butler, for Custer county.

HALLETT J.

A question of jurisdiction under the act of 1887 arises on demurrer to the complaint in each of these actions. The warrants on which plaintiffs seek to recover are in the usual form of such instruments, signed by the chairman of the board of commissioners, attested by the clerk, and directed to the treasurer of the county. In the Chaffee County Case they are payable to a person named therein or to his order, and in the other case they are payable to a person named or to bearer. The names of the payees are not given, nor is anything alleged as to their citizenship; and the question is whether the action can be maintained without showing that they, as well as the plaintiffs, were qualified to sue in this court. The meaning of that clause of the first section of the act of 1887, (24 St. 553,) which relates to suits by assignees of promissory notes and other choses in action, is not very clear, but it seems to be well stated in Newgass v. City of New Orleans, 33 F. 196. When it came from the house of representatives the clause referred to was as follows:

'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 bills of exchange.' 18 Cong.Rec. 646.

The...