TENNENT-STRIBU!fG IJHOEOO\ Y; ROPER.
urie in the same proportioD that the navigable waterUne bears to the shore, line."
The evidence touching the limits of the cove in question is not disputed, and the court could not rightfully have withdrawn the question from the jury. .It follows, necessarily, that the true location of the disputed line was,apropen subject of negotiation and agreement between the parties or their grantors, and, thec0urt did not err in refusing the fourth,request. 'below is affirmed. GROSSCUP, Circuit Judge, by reasdn of sickness, did not share in the final consideration of this case.
TENNENT-STRIBLING SHOE CO. T. ROPER.
(Clreriit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 743.
SUNDAY COlilTRACT-VALmrrYAB .to THIRD PABTIES-ElI'lI'IllCT OJ' RATIJ'ICATIOW.
A debtor cannot defeat the (,lOlleetioD or a val1d debt by an asaignee, on the ground that it, was sold and assIgned to him on Sunday, In violation of the laws of the state, ,where the transfp.r was subsequently ratified by the assignor, and became binding between the parties to it; and such ratification renders It valid from the date of the actual assignment for the purpose of an attachment. thereon p)."Ocured ,by the assignee, on that day.
JURISDICTION OJ' FlllDERAL COUR1:S-.A,MOUNT IN CON'TROVEIUIV.
Where an action in a federal court is baSed on several accounts, eXhibited with the deClaration., the amonnt of the accounts in the aggregate Is the amount in dispute;' and,' when It ,exceeds $2,000, the court Is .not deprived of jurisdictipn, though the defendant successfully attacks the validity of the transfer of one ,of the accounts to the plaintitr, reducing the amount remaining' below the jurisdictional limit. I
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern 'District of Mississippi. Rice T. Fant, for plaintiff in error. ,James Stone and C. L. Siveley, for defendant in error; Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges. SHELBY, Circuit Judge; 1. This is a suit for $2,336.64, begun by attachment by the TenneQt·Stribling Shoe Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of Missouri, against W. E. Roper, a citizen of Mississippi. Of this sum $920.90 is an account which the plaintiff in error holds against the defendant in error for goods sold to him. The remainder of the sum sued for, is composed of ,accounts which were held against the defendant in error by citizens of states, or by corporations organized and chartered in states, of which neither the plaintiff in error nor the defendant in error was a citizen. The assignee of such, claims, if in the aggregate they reach the jurisdictional amount, can sue on them in the United States courts. Chase v. Rollef:..MillsCo., 56 Fed. 625; Bowden v. Burnham, 8 C. C. A. 248, 59 Fed. 752; Bergman v. Inman, 91 Fed.
293J Of the total
sued fOll,;' $644.96 is an, account against tbe defendant in error and in favor of Wm. R. Moore & Co. The other IWt()uhts'weretransferved, in: writing; tQ the plainHft'in muv for a valuable consideratioo. on ,the "20th 'of November, 1;897." ThE¥E!"is no contro'Versy,fn the, case, as :shown in the evidence"ex. cept 1i!s',to the transfer ,of the :WID; R. >Mopre & Co. account. That acc.ount is transfervedf :in this ,language':,'", ' .
lheacc6unt'or Wm;R,;MOOte & Company. Nov. 20,'97. For value received, we hereby sell, transfer, and assign unto Tennent-Stribling ShOO,(jJQi:DI!Qlly"qf )[q., ,the with\n account W, E. Roper. : "WID' R. Moore'&, Company."
The attachment suit was brought on these several claims November 21, 1897. This was on Sunday,but the statutes of Mississippi permit the issuance and levy of attachments on Sunday. Ann. Code, § 139. A declaration was duly;filedjn:t):le 'case."t:lpbsequently, on the 8th J:qe defendant in the suit, W. E. Roper, moved the cotirt to dismiss the cast! "because thil'!'court has no jurisdiction; because, at the :time ;of suing out this attachment, only d,ll.c.or to, the sp.w of $920.90-:' The case was tried and disposed of on this 'motion: The bill of ex'that' tlie :"deferlttaht, I sustain' 'said motion to disthe in attachment,.,Wltli bIlls the transfers on the biHsofparticulars." We have already given the contents ofthefrlll1sfer of the Wtl:1.R. Moore:&:Co. account, dated November 20, 1897. The defendant then o,ffered the evidence of one witness, 0.:0. t,he transfer of theWm.R. Moore & Co. account, Witness was a member of the frrmofWm. R. Moore & To understand thedase, it is necessary t(igiv:e the parh! 't)f Mr.'Armsttong's 'stl:j;tement:
"Q. What time did you ,actp.aIj.y'ap,!l,illfact close firm's accounts with plaintiffs? A. That was actually done, I WQuid say, about 4, evening, Npvemb!'lr Was any Pllllt of the purchase money paid before Monday, the 22d, or on Monday, Jhe22d? A. No, sir. Q. Had any memoranda in writing been signed' before or on Monday, the 22d of A. Any memoranda, in writing,? Q. Yes, sir,-evidencing the sale. A. No, !lir., Q. I :believe YiQuIB.ta,ted .in your direct examination that your firmo",ned the after it was to: the plaintiff up until Monday, November 22d. 'Please explain what you mean when you state that your firm were the owners of the account until that day. A. When I made ,that statement, I forgot a telegram that j;lassed Spnday ,evening, and I 1l0W that it did secure it Sunday evening. was merely mistaken. Q. Thentliesale was made on Sunday, was'it not? A., Yes, sir. Q. When did you first deliver your account to the agi!nt of the Tennent-Stribling Shoe Company, or theplaintilIs? A. I don't 'know,' sir. It was done as soon as the clerks coUld make it out, and ,put it in order. Q. That was some time lifter the was it not? A. Yes, sir."
On crosg'e':xaminationtMr. Armstrong testified that on the even· ingof November 20th he went on the, train with Mr. Fant, the attorney for the plaintiff in error, to Byhalia; that the trip was made to inve$tigate' WJ E. Roper's affairs; that witness had with him a:n itemized statement of the account of Will. R. Moore & Co. againstW. ,E. Roper; 'that it was (In that evening agreed that the plaintiff 'In error could buy theacconnt for 50 cerlts on the dollar