UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL EXCH. BANK.
this court has not appellate jurisdiction in this class of cases, then the larger part of causes pending in the territorial courts cannot be appealed either to the supreme court of the United States or to the circuit courts of appeal, but in that respect the residents of the territories are only placed on an equal footing with the citizens of· the several states. In the larger number of cases brought in the courts of the state, the only appeal is to the supreme court of the state, and in the territory of New Mexico there isa supreme court to which an appeal lies' the same as in the several states. On the other hand, if it should be held that this court can take jurisdiction in this class of cases over the decrees and judgments of the supreme court of territory of New Mexico, the judgment of this court would not be final, under the provisions of section 6 of the act of March 3, 1891, and thus a case not involving any question arising under the constitution .or laws of the United States could be carried first to the supreme court of the territory, thence to the circuit appellate court, and thence to the supreme court of the United States. Certainly it was not the intent of congress, in adopting the act of March 3, 1891, to thus enlarge the right of appeal on behalf of the residents of the several territories. According to the plain reading of section 6 of said act of March 3, 1891, the case at bar does not fall within any of the classes of cases in which this court is given appellate jurisdiction over the judgments or decrees of the supreme court of the territory of New Mexico, and the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is therefore sustained.
UNITED STATES v. NATIONAL EXCH. BANK OF MILWAUKEE.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. October 11, 1892.)
CIRCUIT COURT OIl' APPEALS-JURISDICTION..,..WRIT OIl' ERROR. The United States circuit court of appeals bas no jurisdiction to review a judgment rendered before the act creating that court (26 St. at Large. c. 517) was passed, where the amount claimed was too small to give jurisdiction to the supreme court, since there is nothing in said act it a retrospective effect.
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Dismissed. Elihu Colman, for plaintiff in error. Van Dyke & Van Dyke, for defendant in error. Before GRESHAM, Circuit Judge, and BLODGETT and JENKINS, District Judges. JENKINS, District J uoge. This case was brought in the court below to recover of the defendant bank the sum of $1,259.05, and upon the trial, and on the 2d dl:l.y of February, 1891, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant bank, (45 Fed. Rep. 163,) and writ of error to this court was sued out on the 29th day of July, 1891. The act creating this court was approved March 3, 1891, (26 St. c. 517.) At the time ofthe rendition of this judgment there existed no right to a review
appella.te court. The amount claimed, was less than the minimum atnount 'llecessaryto give the suprem'ecourt power to entertain:suoh review. We are; of opinion that this oourt is without jurisdictionto l'eview this judgment. We find no laQguage in the act indicating -an; intention to nla:ke:it retroactive. Such statutes should be given on1Y:8; prospeotive'operation; unless a contrary intent is exprflssed in. the ao1.U. S. v. Heth, 3 Cra.nch,399j Mayor v; Schermerhorn, 1 N. Y. 423,426; 'Burch v. Newbury,10 N. Y. 374; In re Eager, 46 .N. Y. 100; Railway Co. v. Judge, 10 Bush, 564j Rowell v.Railway Co., 59 N. H. 35; Yansittart v. El. & Bl. 910; In re Phcenix Bessemer Steel Co., 45 Law J. Ch. 11. ' Writ of error dismissed.
CARNEGIE, ]?BIP!,S & CO., Limited, v. HULBERT et aL (Clrcuit Court of, APpeals, Eighth Circuit. October 81, 1892No. 184.
FBDlCll.AL DlV1llnsE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
' A limited partnership organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, and em· powered thereby to sue in its partnership name, is neither a corporation nor of that. state;lwithin the meaning of the statute requiring diverse chi2:eusb.ip ,to give jurill,dietion to a federal circuit court; and it can only maintain'such a suit by averring the proper citizenship of the partners.
In to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebra$L. Action by Carnegie, Phipps & Co., Limited, against ,J. H. Hulbert, E. A. Blum, H. P. Drexel, Albert FoIl, and E. J.Refregier, sureties on a bond given to prevent the :filing of mechanics' liens, pursuant to section 4 iof the act of the general assembly of Iowa, approved April 7, 1884, en,titled "An act to protect subcontractors for performed and material furnished for public buildingsEind improvements." Judgment,for defendants., ,Plaintiff brings error.., Reversed.' Westel W. Morsman,J. M. Junkin, and Smith McPherson, for plaintiff in error. . B. G. Burbank, for defendants in error Drexel and Foll. C. H. Breck and A. A. McClanahan, for defendant in error Refregier. Brome, Andrews & Sheean·:filed brief for defendants in elTOr Hul· bert and Blum. Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and SHIRAS, District Judge.
CALDWELL, Circuit JUdge. This action was'brought in the cir· cuit court of the United States for the district of Nebraska. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and judgment rendered for the defendants, and thereupon the plaintiff sued out .this writ of error. The case has, argued upon its merits, but,upon looking into the record, it appears the following istheonly.jurisdictional averment in the complaint relating to the citizetUlbip of the plaintiff:
"The plainUff. Oarnegie. Phipps &; Co., Limited, acopartners,hip organized un· der and created by the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, and by the laws of said state of Peunsylvania authorized and empowered to sue and be'sued in its copart·