MARVIN 'V. ELLIS.I)
((Jircuit Oourt, E. D. Louisiana. November 15,1881.)
PROMISSORY NOTES-ACTION ON-PARTms. .
The assignee of a mortgage note can bring suit upon it, whoever the rea} owner may be, unleBB it was assigned for the purpose of depriving the mortgagor of a substantial ground of defence against the real owner.
The circuit court has no jurisdiction of a cause on the ground of the citizen.' ship of the parties, where tho nominal parties to the suit are not the real.par.. ties, but have been made parties collusively, to bring the controversywit;hin the jurisdiction of the court.
In Chancery. On demurrer to croBB-billfor injunction· .Complainant filed a bill in equity to foreclose his mortgage upon the plantation of defendant, and, under the statutes of Louisiana, prayed for a writ of seizure and sale, dJrected to the marshal to seize and sell the to pay his debt, which writ duly issued, and the plantation was seized and advertised for sale. The defendant then appeared, and, under a rule of this court, filed a cross-bill, in the nature of what is known in the state practice as an opposition to the writ of seizure and sale, and alleged that the plaintiff was not the true and lawful owner of .the mortgage notes sued upon, but was a party interposed for the purpose of giving jurisdIction to'this court i the real holders and owners being Citizens of the saine ,tate as defendant, an!l against whom defeI!dant had equities to plead,'which he sets up. Complainant then filed a general demurrer to the cross-bill, and the case was argued on. that·
.Geo. L. Bright, .for compHiinant.· . ,NiehaUs cf; GarroU, for defenda;nt.
PARD:E1E, C. J. Everything alleged in the petition or cross-bill of defendant may be true, with the exception hereafter noted, and yet he¢an have no relief-is entitled to none;. assignment to Matvin of the notes sued on, no matter what the interest actually conveyed, vests the title sufficiently in him to sue; and Louisiana authority is clear to that effect. Defendant. has no right. to inq1lire the plaintiff, in whom the legal title, appears to be ves.ted, an or the real owner, unless, by a fictitious assignment, it be attempted to deprive him o.f substantial grounds of defence whichpe may have against the true owner. The judgment will be res ad;iudicata everyone who might afterwards claim an interest in the note Or biil. See Hennen's Digest, 180, No.5, 8,nd authorities there cited, larly 14 La. 256. The plaintiff having a sufflcient title to bring suit, tl,nd being a citizen of another state, while the. defendant iaa citizen of this· state, the suit may be brought in this court. . See section 10f
-Reppl'ted byJ.oseph P. Horner; Esq.,ofthe New Orleans bar.
the act of Congress approved March 3, 1875, and note the difference between that act and the first paragraph of section 629 of the Revised Statutes, with regard to promissory notes, negotiable by the law-merchant, and bills of exchange. But the petition or cross-bill in this case alleges in substance that the party plaintiff has been collusively made for the purpose of bringing the case within the jurisdiction of this court, and this presents an issue or showing under the sixth section of the act of 1875, to which the plaintiff ought to reply. The demurrers herein filed will be sustained, except so far as the issue just referred to is concerned, and that will leave the petition or cross-bill substantially a plea to the jurisdiction, on the ground that the plaintiff Marvin has been collusively made a party, in order to give the court jurisdiction. Costs of the demurrer to be paid by the defendant.
SIOUX CITY ST. PAUL
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Minnesota.
OF CONGRESS-WHEN TO TAKE EFFECT.
Title to swamp land was not vested by the act of congress of September 28, 1850, until the admission of a territory into the Union. Hence, the statc of Minnesotanot having been admitted into the Union at the date of the passage of the act granting lands to the territory or future state of Minnesota for the construction of railroads, approved March 3, 1857, a grantee of the state, by virtue of the acts of the legislature March 8, 1861, and March 4, 1864, has a good title as against one whose title depends upon the proper construction of the acts of congress approved September 28, 1850, and March 12, 1860.
E. C. Palmer, for complainant. John B. <t W. H. Sanborn, for defendant. NELSON, D. J. This suit is instituted to establish the superior right of the complainants to the land in controversy. The equitable title is claimed to be in the complainant and the legal title in the defendant. The defendant's title is derived from the state of Minnesota by conveyance under the authority of an act of its legislature, the land being described as swamp, and certified to the state as swamp lands belonging to it by virtue of the acts of congress approved September 28, 1850, and March 12, 1860. The complainant's title is claimed to be vested under the act of congress passed March 3,1857,