Wilson v. Knox County
| Decision Date | 25 September 1890 |
| Parties | WILSON v. KNOX COUNTY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This was a suit against Knox county, Mo., on certain county warrants aggregating $7,000, which were of the following form, omitting the dates, names of payees, amounts, etc.
'STATE 0F MISSOURI. '$ . . . . EDINA, . . ., 188 . . .
'
The warrants were originally issued to a citizen of the state of Missouri, who assigned them to the plaintiff, a citizen of Illinois. The assignments are as follows:
'For value received, . . . assign the within warrant to this . . . day of . . ., 18 . . . '
Both the warrants and the assignments thereon are in the form prescribed by the laws of the state of Missouri for drawing and assigning such instruments.
W. C Hallister and F. H. McCullough, for plaintiff.
James Carr, for defendant.
Before MILLER, Justice, and CALDWELL, J.
This case is pending in the northern division of this district, but by stipulation of counsel has been argued before us in the eastern division of the district.
The question that arises on the demurrer to the plea of the jurisdiction is whether the assignee of the warrants can maintain a suit thereon in this court, under the judiciary act of March 3, 1887, although the original holder was incapacitated from maintaining such a suit. The clause of the act under which the question arises is as follows:
'Nor shall any circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit except upon foreign bills or exchange, to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent holder, if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not made by any corporation, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment or transfer had been made.' The contention for the plaintiff is that the court has jurisdiction of the suit at bar, because the instruments sued upon are not 'payable to bearer,' and are 'made by a corporation.' This we think is an erroneous view of the law. Congress did not intend to give the federal courts jurisdiction of all suits by assignees of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott County, Ark. v. Advance-Rumley Thresher Co.
... ... was to limit the jurisdiction, undoubtedly, of the federal ... courts. As expressed by Justice Miller in Wilson v. Knox ... County (C.C.) 43 F. 481, 482: ... 'The ... general rule enunciated by the statute is that the federal ... courts shall not ... ...
-
Independent School Dist. of Sioux City v. Rew
... ... should be in substantially the same form as was by law ... prescribed for county bonds, and the form prescribed for ... county bonds contained a certificate that they were issued ... v. City of New Orleans (C.C.) 33 F. 196; Rollins v ... Chaffee Co. (C.C.) 34 F. 91; Wilson v. Knox Co ... (C.C.) 43 F. 481; Cloud v. City of Sumas (C.C.) ... 52 F. 177; Benjamin v ... ...
-
Kresberg v. International Paper Co.
...Bloomfield Village Drain District v. Keefe, 6 Cir., 119 F.2d 157. Yet this statute was enacted to limit federal jurisdiction, Wilson v. Knox County, C.C., 43 F. 481, and should be strictly construed to accomplish that Affirmed. ...
-
Blake v. Pine Mountain Iron & Coal Co.
...unless their assignors could have also sued, except where the instrument is made payable to bearer and executed by a corporation. Wilson v. Knox Co., 43 F. 481. It argued that the instruments here involved not being within this exception, and Blake not having, on his own showing, any lien, ......