Gibson v. Chew

-The Circuit Courts of the United States have not cognisance of any suit to.recover - the contents, of any prQmissory note- or other chose: in action in favour of an as- ; signee, 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. . . . •

IÑ error' to the Circuit Court of the United States for Mississippi., An action was instituted in-the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Mississippi, by Beverly Chew, a.citizen of the state of Louisiana, against John A, Gibson and Kinchen A. Martin, citizens of the state of Louisiana. ' The action was-brought to recover the amount of a'promissory note drawn by John A. Gibson in favour óf, and endorsed by Kinchen A. Martin, for three thousand five hundred dollars, and endorsed over to the plaintiff. . -The declaration set out the promissory note, the drawer and endorser of the same being included-in the same writ, under the provisions of an act of the legislature of Mississippi; which had been adopted as a .rule of practice in the -Circuit Court," by order of the District Judge holding the Circuit Court. The defendants appeared to the action,, and having demurred to the plaintiff’s declaration, filed the following causes- of demurrer. 1. This Court has no jurisdiction, the plaintiff- in his declaration being the assignee of Kinchen A. Martin, who is a citizen of the same state’ with the maker of the note sued on, as declaration avers. 2. The declaration does not aver defendants to be.residents of the southern district of Mississippi. •The demurrer’was overruled, and the defendants having refused to plead to the merits of the action, judgment was rendered in favour of the plaintiff. The. defendants prosecuted this writ of error. stated, that this wás a suit against the drawer and endorser of a promissory note, both being alleged in the declaration to be citizens of the state of Mississippi. Then by the eleventh, section of the judiciary act of the 24th September, 1789, ho suit' could.be prosecuted in the Court below against the maker of the note. It is said a state law authorizes this proceedings but no state law can repeal, or be intended to repeal an act of Congress limiting the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States. By the act of Congress, the Courts of the Union are expressly deprived of all jurisdiction in this case and such jurisdiction cannot be cohferred by a state law, especially in direct opposition to an act of Congress in full force tnd unrepealed.