Brock v. Northwestern Fuel Co.

Supreme Court

Brock v. Northwestern Fuel Co.

130 U.S. 341, 9 S. Ct. 552, 32 L. Ed. 905, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1757

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 15, 1889

Docket210

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 130 U.S. 341 (Brock v. Northwestern Fuel Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brock v. Northwestern Fuel Co., 130 U.S. 341, 9 S. Ct. 552, 32 L. Ed. 905, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1757 (1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Harlan

stated the case as above reported and delivered the opinion of the court.

The act of 1875 declares that no Circuit or District Court shall 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 promissory notes negotiable by the' law merchant and bills of exchange.” 18 Stat. 470. It does not appear that the What Cheer Land and Coal Company, the plaintiffs’ assignor, could' have brought suit on the contract in question, if no assignment had been made. The record does not show of what State it is a corporation. The allegation that it was “ doing business in the State of Iowa ” does not necessarily import that it was created by the laws of that State. But if that allegation were held sufficient to show it was an Iowa corporation, the result would be the same, because, in that case, it would appear that the parties to the original contract weré all citizens of Iowa, and consequently that the assignor could not have sued the defendants in the Circuit Court of the United States.

The judgment is reversed upon the ground that it does not *343 appear, affirmatively, from the record that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 588, and. the cause is remanded for further proceedings in. accordance with law.

jReversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Harlan

stated the case as above reported and delivered the opinion of the court.

The act of 1875 declares that no Circuit or District Court shall 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 promissory notes negotiable by the' law merchant and bills of exchange.” 18 Stat. 470. It does not appear that the What Cheer Land and Coal Company, the plaintiffs’ assignor, could' have brought suit on the contract in question, if no assignment had been made. The record does not show of what State it is a corporation. The allegation that it was “ doing business in the State of Iowa ” does not necessarily import that it was created by the laws of that State. But if that allegation were held sufficient to show it was an Iowa corporation, the result would be the same, because, in that case, it would appear that the parties to the original contract weré all citizens of Iowa, and consequently that the assignor could not have sued the defendants in the Circuit Court of the United States.

The judgment is reversed upon the ground that it does not *343 appear, affirmatively, from the record that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 588, and. the cause is remanded for further proceedings in. accordance with law.

jReversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 U.S. 341, 9 S. Ct. 552, 32 L. Ed. 905, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-v-northwestern-fuel-co-scotus-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack