of the state by which they are chartered. As such they are held included in the word ·citizens' in the constitution of the United States and in the removal acts. The act of 1875 for removal of causes from state to national courts expressly recognizes the jurisdiction of state courts over actions between non-resident citizens. The same express recognition is made by the supreme court of the United States. Bal'ney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205. "Motion overruled." Provisions of Ohio statutes as to oonsent of foreign insurance oompanies to
be sued and service made upon certain agents, (seotion 3657, Rev. St. 1880,) and
where actions against foreign corporations generally to be brought, and how service of process made. (sections 5030,5045,5046, Rev. St. 1880.)-[Rm>·..
(Circuit Court, D. Oregon. June 21, 1882,1
A note for 500 pounds sterling is payable in a certain sum of "mouey" and made upon a sufficient consideration. therefore negotiable,
By section 2 of the act of March 3, 1873, (11 St. 603; section 3565, Rev. St.,) it is provided that "in the construction of contracts payable in sovereigns or pounds sterling" each pound shall be valued at *4.8665. Held, that in an action upon a note payable in pounds sterling it is not necessary to aver or prove the value of such pound in money of. the United States, but that the court will give judgment for the value of the contents of the note in money of the pnited States, according to the ratio prescribed by the statute.
Action upon Note. EUu G. Hughes, for plaintiff. William H. Effinger, for defendants. DEADY, D. J. This, action is brought by the plaintiff. a. British subject, against the defendant, a citizen of Oregon. upon a promiSe sory note alleged to have been made by the defendant on January 29, 1879, and delivered to "Mrs." John Pollock, "for the sum of 500 pounds sterling, money of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," payable in oqe year after date, with interest at the rate of 5 per centum per annum; which note was afterwards duly transferred to the plaintiff, and is still unpaid. The oomplaint concludes with a prayer for judgment against the defendant for said sum of £500 and interest, or "its equivalent in money of the United States." Nothing is alleged as to where the note was made or made payable.
KING V. HAMILTON.
The defendant demurs because (1) the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and (2) it does not appear that the note was made "for value." Upon the argument of the demurrer the point made by counsel for defendant was that the note was not made for "money" but a commodity, and therefore it was neither negotiable nor presumed to have been made upon a ficient consideration, but that the same must be alleged as in the case of an ordinary simple contract. In support of the demurrer counsel cites Com. v. Haupt, 10 Allen, 38; Edwards, Bills, 128; Byles, Bills, 92; Robinson v. HaU, 28 How. Pro 342; Abb. Law Dict. "Money." The rule that bills and notes must be' for the payment of "money" only is admitted. Story, Bills, § 43; Byles, Bills, 92; Chitty, Bills, 188 ; Daniell, Neg. Inst. § 50. But it is equally well established that they may be made payable in the "money" of any country.......;in its coins, "such as guineas, ducats, Louis-d'ors, doub. loons, crowns, or dollars; or in the known currency of a country, as pounds sterling, livres, tournoises, francs, florins, etc.; for in all these cases the Bum of money is fixed by the par of exchange or the known denomination of the currency with reference to the par." Story, Bills, § 43; Daniell, Neg. lnst. § 58; Edwards, Bills, 137-8: Blackv. Ward, 27 Mich. 191; Thompson v. Sloan, 28 Wend. 74. It follows that a note payable in pounds sterling or British sover· eigns is payable in "money" jltst as much and as certainly as if it was payable in dollars. The case is different from a note made payable in "currency," which may be "money" only conventionally, but not legally. But where a note is made payable in a particular denomination of foreign money, as pounds sterling, it is payable in money the same as if it was payable in a denomination of domestic money. As was said in the court in Thompson v. Sloan, supra, a bill or note payable in money of a foreign denomination is negotiable, "for it can be paid in our own coin of equivalent value, to which it is always reduced by recovery. A note payable in pounds sterling and pence, made in any country, is but another mode of expressing the amount in dollars and cents, and is so understood judicially." It is also said in the books that the plaintiff in such case should allege and prove the value of the sum expressed in foreign money in the United States, which has not been done here. But I money of apprehend that this is now unnecessary. By section 2 of the act of March 3, 1878, (17 St. 603; section
3565, Rev. St.,) it is provided that "in all payments by or to the treasury the sovereign or pound sterling" shall "be deemed equal to $4.8665;" and this rule is further declared applicable to the appraisement of imported merchandise when the value of the invoice is expressed in pounds sterling, "and in the construction of contracts payable in sovereigns or pounds sterling;" and this valuation is declared to be the par of exchange between Great Britain and the United States. The provision concerning contracts payable in sovereigns or pounds sterling is new in the legislation of the United States. In the Collector v. Richards, 23 Wall. 246, this act came before the supreme court, and the opinion of Mr. Justice Bradley is instructive upon the m')ject under consideration. It seems to have been taken for granted that the pound sterling is money, and known as such to the court independently of the aot of oongress; and money, too, that oan, in a judicial prooeeding, be converted into money of the United States upon proof of the par of exchange. He says:
".Although the sovereign or _pound as a coin, has only existed since the year 1817, the amount of pure gold contained in the pound sterling (estimating the guinea at 21 shillings) has been 113.001 grains ever since the year 1717; and as the United States dollar contains 23.22 grains of pure metal, it only requires a process of simple division to show that the value of the sovereign is precisely what the second section of the act determines it to be. 'I.'his intrinsic value of the pound sterling, as represented by the gold coins of England, was a matter of such public notoriety as to need no extraneous inquiry on the subject. It was the public law of the British empire during the period of our own colonial history, of which all our courts were required to take judicial notice; and its continuance to the present time is a publio fact as well established as any other act of the British government."
The contract sued on here is a contract for the payment of "money," and not a "commodity." It is also a oontract for the payment of pounds sterling, and therefore within the purview of the act of 1873, supra, which establishes the value of this foreign coin in money of the United States. It is not rl;;Jquired to aver or prove what the law establishes, and therefore, in giving judgment for the plaintiff in this action, it is only necessary to convert the 500 pounds into dollars at the rate of 4.866! of the latter to one of the former. Beyond a doubt, then, this note was made for "money," and for a sum certain, because a note for any number of pounds sterling is only another form of expression for the equivalent in dollars, which equivalent is now prescribed by statute. The case of the Co'm. v. Haupt, (10 Allen, supra,) in which the an-
BAXTER V. BARTFORDFIRE INS. CO.
nual report of the mint was takel).;80s the value of the pound sterling, ($4.8448,) arose under the act of 1857 (11 St. 163) .and was deoided prior to the passage of the act of 1873. The demurrer is overrured. :,
(Czrcuit Court,1). Indiana,. June
A commission ,merchant engaged in business of buying a,qd selling graiD" , and in .connection with .such b,Ulliness owning and operating an eleyator in ,the usual way, has such an interest in ,the grain deposited in his elevator by others as to authorize him to insure it for its full value; and this is so, although the contrltet between him and the depositors of thergrain sf.ipulates ,that the grain in store is subject to his charges, and that firelsat the owner's risk.
David Turpie, for plaintiffs. IIarri3 IX Cdlkins, for defEmdants. GRESHAM, D. J. This is a suit on afirepoIicyissued by the defendant to the, "plaintiffs! OIl gra.in, seeds; and sacks, their own,' t>1" held by them in trust 'or on or sold but not delivered,' contained in their elevator at'.Rochester, IndiJina. The elevator and its contents were destroyed by fire'." !:s to 2,238 bushels of wheat in the elevator at the time of the fire, it is averred in the third paragraph of the answer that this was delivered to the plaintiffs by farmers after the insuraI1ce was taken, every one of whom, at the time of such delivery, receIved and accepted from the plaintiffs 80 written instrument or contract, specifying anddescribirig the amount and character of wheat by him delivered, and concluding as follows: "Wheat in store subject to' our charges. " Fire at owner's risk." It is also averred that it was not the intention of those depositing the wheat, or the plaintiffs,' that. it should be covered by the policy sued on, and that at the time ofthe fire the 'plaintiffs had in the elevator wheat of their own. These facts are plead.ed p,gainst a recovery for more than the plaintiff's lien for charges on the 2,238 bushels of wheat. The plaintiffs demur to the third paragraph of the answer·
· Reported by Charles H. McCarer, Asst. U. S. Atty.