Williams v. Nottawa
| Citation | 104 U.S. 209,26 L.Ed. 719 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. NOTTAWA |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Submitted on printed arguments by Messrs. Hughes, O'Brien, & Smiley for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Charles Upson for the defendant in error.
This suit was brought by Williams, a citizen of Indiana, against the township of Nottawa, a municipal corporation of Michigan, to recover the amount alleged to be due on certain of its bonds, negotiable by the law merchant, and payable to Samuel Kline, or bearer. A trial was had by a jury, which resulted in a verdict, by the direction of the court, in favor of Williams for six of the bonds, and in favor of the township for the remainder. This writ of error has been brought by Williams to reverse the judgment against him; and, as the court directed the verdict which was rendered, the whole of the evidence has been embodied in the bill of exceptions, and is properly before us for consideration.
From the testimony of Williams himself, it distinctly appears he was personally the owner of only three of the bonds sued on of $100 each. One Bracey Tobey was the owner of three others of the same amount. The judgment in favor of Williams was upon these six bonds, and for $994.57 only. All the other bonds, being those on which the judgment was rendered in favor of the township, were owned by Samuel Kline and William Connor, both of whom were residents of the township and citizens of Michigan when the bonds were issued. There is no evidence of any change of citizenship by Kline since the bonds were delivered, and Connor, who was a witness at the trial, testified that he continued to be a citizen of Michigan. The bonds were transferred by Kline and Connor to Williams simply for the purpose of collection with his own. The same is true of those belonging to Tobey, but there is nothing in the evidence to show of what State he was a citizen, though he testified that he bought his bonds in Michigan.
By sect. 11 of the Judiciary Act of Sept. 24, 1789, c. 20 (1 Stat. 78), it was expressly provided that the District and Circuit Courts of the United States should not 'have cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment had been made, except in cases of foreign bills of exchange.' By sect. 1 of the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137 (18 Stat., pt. 3, p. 470), this provision was so far modified as to extend the exception to 'promissory notes negotiable by the law merchant and bills of exchange,' but in sect. 5 it was expressly enacted 'that if in any suit commenced in a Circuit Court . . . it shall appear to the satisfaction of said Circuit Court, at any time after such suit has been brought, . . . that such suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said Circuit Court, or that the parties to said suit have been improperly or collusively made or joined, either as plaintiffs or defendants, for the purpose of creating a case cognizable . . . under this act; the said Circuit Court shall proceed no further therein, but shall dismiss the suit, . . . and shall make such order as to costs as shall be just.'
This case, so far as the bonds owned by Kline and Connor are concerned, comes clearly within this prohibition. As the actual owners of the bonds were citizens of Michigan, they could not sue in the courts of the United States, and Williams distinctly testifies that he received and held their bonds solely for the purpose of collection with his own, and for their account. It cannot for a moment be doubted that this was done 'for the purpose of creating a case' for Kline and Connor cognizable in the courts of the United States. That being so, it was the duty of the Circuit Court to dismiss the suit as to these bonds, and proceed no further; for as to them the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Sperling
...178, 184-189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135; Robinson v. Anderson, 1887, 121 U.S. 522, 7 S.Ct. 1011, 30 L.Ed. 1021; Williams v. Nottawa, 1881, 104 U.S. 209, 211, 26 L.Ed. 719; Minnis v. So. Pac. Co., 9 Cir., 1938, 98 F.2d 913, 915, certiorari denied, 1939, 306 U.S. 631, 59 S.Ct. 461, 83 L.Ed.......
-
St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co
...in fact have a claim for the jurisdictional amount or value, and knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that fact. Williams v. Nottawa, 104 U.S. 209, 211, 26 L.Ed. 719; McNutt v. General Motors Corporation, supra, 298 U.S. 178, 184, 56 S.Ct. 780, 782, 80 L.Ed. 1135. It is plaintiff's burd......
-
Shaffer v. Coty, Inc.
...10 S.Ct. 539, 33 L.Ed. 923; Smith v. Greenhow, supra, 109 U.S. at pages 670-671, 3 S.Ct. at pages 421-422; Williams v. Nottawa, 1881, 104 U.S. 209, 212-213, 26 L.Ed. 719. Finally, it may be recalled that in areas such as patent, copyright, trademark infringement and unfair competition, wher......
-
Allen v. Clark, 8158Y.
...cited and others such as Bernard's Township v. Stebbins, 1883, 109 U.S. 341, 355, 3 S.Ct. 252, 27 L.Ed. 956, and Williams v. Nottawa Tp., 1881, 104 U.S. 209, 26 L.Ed. 719, dealing with assignments for collection, relate to assignments by different owners, none of whose claims are in the jur......