An endorsee of a promissory note who resides in a different
state may sue, in the circuit court his immediate endorser,
residing in the state in which the suit is brought, although that
endorsee be a resident of the same state with the maker of the
note.
But where the suit is brought against a remote endorser and the
plaintiff in his declaration traces his title through an
intermediate endorser, he must show that this intermediate endorser
could have sustained his action in the circuit court.
A plea to the jurisdiction of the circuit court must show that
the parties were citizens of the same state at the time the action
was brought, and not merely at the time of the plea pleaded. The
jurisdiction depends upon the state of things at the time of the
action brought, and after it is once vested, it cannot be ousted by
a subsequent change of residence of either of the parties
Page 22 U. S. 538
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the
Court.
The declaration in this cause contains two counts. The first is
against the defendant, Torrance, as endorser of a promissory note
made by Spencer & Dunn, payable to Sylvester Dunn and endorsed
by him to the defendant, Torrance, by whom it was endorsed to H. J.
Lowrie, and by him to the plaintiffs. The other count is for money
had and received by the defendant to the plaintiffs' use.
The declaration states the plaintiffs to be citizens of New
York, and the defendant to be a citizen of Mississippi, but is
silent respecting the citizenship or residence of Lowrie, the
immediate endorser of Torrance, through whom the plaintiffs trace
their title to the money for which the suit is instituted.
The case of
Young v.
Bryan, 6 Wheat. 146, has decided that an endorsee
who resides in a different state may sue his immediate endorser,
residing in the state in which the suit is brought, although that
endorser be a resident of the same state with the maker of the
note, but in this case the suit is brought against a remote
endorser, and the plaintiffs, in their declaration, trace their
title through an intermediate endorser
Page 22 U. S. 539
without showing that this intermediate endorser could have
sustained his action against the defendant in the courts of the
United States. The case of
Turner v. Bank of North
America, 4 Dall. 8, has decided that this count
does not give the court jurisdiction. But the count for money had
and received to the use of the plaintiffs being free from
objection, it becomes necessary to look further into the case.
The defendant has filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court
in which he states that the promises laid in the declaration were
made to H. J. Lowrie, and not to the plaintiffs, and that the said
H. J. Lowrie and the defendant are both citizens of the State of
Mississippi. The plaintiffs demurred to this plea, and the
defendant joined in demurrer. On argument, the demurrer was
overruled, the plea sustained, and judgment rendered for the
defendant.
The case is now before the Court on a writ of error.
The plaintiffs contend that the plea is defective because it
avers that the said H. J. Lowrie and the defendant are both
citizens of the State of Mississippi at the time of the plea
pleaded, not that they were citizens of the said state at the time
the action was brought.
It is quite clear that the jurisdiction of the court depends
upon the state of things at the time of the action brought, and
that after vesting, it cannot be ousted by subsequent events.
Since, then, one of the counts shows jurisdiction, and the plea
does not contain sufficient matter to deny
Page 22 U. S. 540
that jurisdiction, we think that judgment ought not to have been
rendered on the demurrer in favor of the defendant. It must
therefore be reversed and the cause remanded to the court for the
District of Mississippi, where the parties may amend their
pleadings, which are very defective.
Judgment reversed.
JUDGMENT. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of
the record of the District Court of the United States for the
District of Mississippi and was argued by counsel. On consideration
whereof, this Court is of opinion that there is error in the
judgment of the said district court in overruling the demurrer of
the plaintiffs to the plea of the defendant and in giving judgment
for the defendant, wherefore it is considered by this Court that
the said judgment be reversed and annulled, and it is hereby
reversed and annulled accordingly and the said cause is remanded to
the said district court with liberty to the parties to amend their
pleadings, and that further proceedings may be had therein
according to law.