Rogers v. Linn

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois

Rogers v. Linn

20 F. Cas. 1117, 2 McLean 126

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois

DecidedJune 15, 1840

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 F. Cas. 1117 (Rogers v. Linn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rogers v. Linn, 20 F. Cas. 1117, 2 McLean 126 (circtdil 1840).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

A demurrer is filed to the declaration in this case, on the ground that the plaintiff has brought the action as assignee, and does not aver or state, in his declaration, that his assignor might have brought suit in his own name, in this court, at the time of the assignment. This is a fatal defect in the declaration. The jurisdiction of this court is limited; and it has often been decided that the plaintiff must show, in his pleadings, that the case is within their jurisdiction. By the 11th section of the judiciary act of 1789 [1 Stat. 78], the assignee of a negotiable instrument can not maintain a suit in the federal court in his own name, unless the assignor could also have sued, at the time of the assignment, in the same court. And this must appear in the pleadings, or the exception will be fatal if raised by demurrer, on a motion in arrest of judgment, or on a writ of error. In a suit by the indorsee of a promissory note against the drawer, it must appear on the record, that the circuit court would have had jurisdiction, as between the original parties to the instrument, or it will have none over the case. Turner’s Adm’rs v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. [4 U. S.] 8; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch [8 U. S.] 46. The demurrer is sustained; but, on motion, leave is given to amend the declaration.

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

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

A demurrer is filed to the declaration in this case, on the ground that the plaintiff has brought the action as assignee, and does not aver or state, in his declaration, that his assignor might have brought suit in his own name, in this court, at the time of the assignment. This is a fatal defect in the declaration. The jurisdiction of this court is limited; and it has often been decided that the plaintiff must show, in his pleadings, that the case is within their jurisdiction. By the 11th section of the judiciary act of 1789 [1 Stat. 78], the assignee of a negotiable instrument can not maintain a suit in the federal court in his own name, unless the assignor could also have sued, at the time of the assignment, in the same court. And this must appear in the pleadings, or the exception will be fatal if raised by demurrer, on a motion in arrest of judgment, or on a writ of error. In a suit by the indorsee of a promissory note against the drawer, it must appear on the record, that the circuit court would have had jurisdiction, as between the original parties to the instrument, or it will have none over the case. Turner’s Adm’rs v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. [4 U. S.] 8; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch [8 U. S.] 46. The demurrer is sustained; but, on motion, leave is given to amend the declaration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 F. Cas. 1117, 2 McLean 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-linn-circtdil-1840.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack