TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brock v. Northwestern Fuel Co.

Brock v. Northwestern Fuel Company

Brock v. Northwestern Fuel Co., 130 U.S. 341 (1889)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 15, 1889
Docket
No. 210
Judges
Harlan Stated the Case as Above Reported And
Citations
130 U.S. 3419 S. Ct. 55232 L. Ed. 9051889 U.S. LEXIS 1757
Cited by 5
Syllabus
When it does not appear, affirmatively, from the record that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, the judgment below will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings-in accordance with law. '
Summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA. The Northwestern Fuel Company, a Minnesota corporation, brought this action, February 18, 1882, to recover .from the plaintiffs in error, citizens of Iowa, the sum of $1309.50, alleged' 'to be due under a written.contract, made.July 21,1881, between the lattér and the What Cheer Land and Coal Company, a corporation alleged to be “doing business'in. the State of Iowa; ” the benefits of which contract were assigned by that company to the plaintiff. The contract related to coal to be mined by the What Cheer Land and Coal Company at its mine in Iowa, and which Brock & Co. agreed to receive and pay for at certain specified rates. .The defendants, Brock and McKenzie, in their answer, asserted a counter claim of $20,000 against the plaintiff. There was a verdict against the defendants for $1402.47. The case was brought here, for review in respect to numerous errors of law alleged to have been committed by the court below, to the prejudice of the defendants.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Harlan

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1903: 11906: 11921: 11925: 11926: 119032026peak 1903 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Woods v. First Nat. Bank of Albuquerque, N. M.16 F.2d 856 (9th Cir. 1926)
  2. New England Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. Calhoun9 F.2d 272 (8th Cir. 1925)
  3. Danks v. Gordon272 F. 821 (2d Cir. 1921)
  4. Kolze v. Hoadley200 U.S. 76 (1906)
  5. Jones v. Pacific Dredging Co.72 P. 956 (Idaho 1903)

Most recent

  1. Woods v. First Nat. Bank of Albuquerque, N. M.16 F.2d 856 (9th Cir. 1926)
  2. New England Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. Calhoun9 F.2d 272 (8th Cir. 1925)
  3. Danks v. Gordon272 F. 821 (2d Cir. 1921)
  4. Kolze v. Hoadley200 U.S. 76 (1906)
  5. Jones v. Pacific Dredging Co.72 P. 956 (Idaho 1903)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 586 (1888) 123

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list