Supreme Court of the United States, 1874

Morgan's v. Gay

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 18, 1874 · Strong

86 U.S. 81; 22 L. Ed. 100; 19 Wall. 81; 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1430 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Messrs. J. A. and D. G. Campbell, for the plaintiff in error; no opposing counsel.

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

Portage City Water Co. v. City of Portage (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Wisconsin 1900)
Holman v. Carpenter Technology Corp. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1980)
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donnelly Garment Co. (8th Cir. 1941)
New England Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. Calhoun (8th Cir. 1925)
Newcomb v. Burbank (2d Cir. 1910)
Farr v. Hobe-Peters Land Co. (7th Cir. 1910)
Utah-Nevada Co. v. De Lamar (9th Cir. 1904)
City of Eau Claire v. Payson (7th Cir. 1901)
Hampton v. Truckee Canal Co. (United States Circuit Courts 1883)
John W. Carson and Joanna Holland v. Allied News Co., an Illinois Corporation (7th Cir. 1975)
Union Manufacturing Co. v. Spies (Wis. 1923)
Puget Sound Navigation Co. v. Lavendar (9th Cir. 1907)
Brigel v. Tug River Coal & Salt Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky 1896)
Holmes v. Goldsmith (Supreme Court of the United States 1893)
United States Nat. Bank of New York v. McNair (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina 1893)
Chafee v. Postal Telegraph Co. (S.C. 1892)
Parker v. Ormsby (Supreme Court of the United States 1891)
Idaho & Oregon Land Improvement Co. v. Bradbury (Supreme Court of the United States 1889)
Johnson v. Christian (Supreme Court of the United States 1888)
Goldsmith v. Holmes (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon 1888)
Continental Insurance v. Rhoads (Supreme Court of the United States 1886)
Robertson v. Cease (Supreme Court of the United States 1878)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice STRONG

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff is an assignee of the bills within the meaning of the eleventh section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and by tbe express provisions of the section is not entitled to maintain his action in the Circuit Court, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the contents of the bills if no assignment had been made. But the petition does not show that the indorsers through whom the plaintiff claims were not citizens of Louisiana at the time the suit was brought. It is true, the citizenship of the defendant is averred to have been in Louisiana, and that of the plaintiff' in Kentucky, but there is no averment of the citizenship of the payees of the bills, or of the citizenship of the subsequent indorsers. For aught that appears in the record, they .may also be citizens of Louisiana; and, therefore, incapable of suing in the Circuit Court for that district to recover the contents of the bills. As that court has only a limited jurisdiction, it must appear affirmatively that it may take cogni *83 zance of the controversy between the parties. * In Turner v. The Bank of North America, † it was distinctly ruled that when au action upon a promissory note is brought in a Federal court by an indorser against the maker, not only the parties to the suit, but also the citizenship of the payee, and the indorser, must be averred in the record to be such as to give the court jurisdiction. The same rule was asserted in Montalet v. Murray, ‡ in Mollan v. Torrance, § and in Gibson et al. v. Chew. ǁ The judgment must, therefoi'e, be reversed, and the cause sent back that amendment may be made in the pleadings showing the citizenship of the indorser of the bills, if it be such as to give the court jurisdiction of the case.

We may notice another error which will doubtless be avoided should there be a second trial. Issues of fact appear to have been made up which were determined by the court in the absence of the defendant’s counsel, and without any written agreement to waive a jury trial. This was irregular. In the absence of such an agreement, and of the defendant’s counsel, it was not competent for the court to try the issue without the intervention of a jury. ¶

Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings,

In accordance with this opinion.

Turner v. Enrille, 4 Dallas, 7.

Ib. 8.

4 Cranch, 46.

Kearney v. Case, 12 Wallace, 275.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.