YELLOW ASTER MIN· .t MILL. CO. V. WINCHELL.
It is first contended that the instrument is not a promissory note, but is an attempt to make a testamentary disposition of property, and is destitute of legal efficacy as the foundation of a cause of action. I cannot concur in this view. There is no attempt to make a testamentary disposition of propertY,for the instrument contains no provisions resembling those of a will. It is an absolute promise to pay money. It differs from an ordinary promissory note in the single particular that it fixes the time of pa;yment at a period subsequent to the promisor's death. It· is neTertheless a promise to pay money absolutely, and at all events, to a person named, and at a time certain, because that is certain which may be rendered certain; and it has, therefore, every essential feature of a promissory note. All the modern authorities agree that such instruments as the one in question are to be deemed promissory notes of the persons by whom they are executed. The text writers and adjudications supporting this view are too numerous for citation. It is next insisted that the demurrer ought to be sustained because this court is without jurisdiction for the reason tbnt the statute of this state requires that all claims against the estatf , of decedents shall be filed with the clerk of the court having juriJdiction of the administration of the estate. This proposition has been often asserted,and has been as often denied by the courts of the United States. It is firmly settled by the decisions of this court, as well as by the decisions of the supreme court of the United States, that the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States cannot be impaired by the laws of the states which prescribe particular modes of redress in their courts, or which regulate the distribution of judicial power. The question here made was made in the cases of Hess v. Reynolds, 113 U. S.73, 5 Sup. Ct. 377, and Clark v. Bever, 139 U. S. 96, 11 Sup. Ct. 468, and was decided adversely to the party assailing the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. In each case it was decided that the courts of the United States had jurisdiction to entertain suits upon claims against the estttes of decedents brought against executors and administrators, where the requisite diversity of citizenship existed, and the amount in controversy was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, the demurrer to the complaint must be overruled, to which the defendant excepts.
YELLOW AS'l'ER MIN. & MILL. CO. v. WINCHELL et aL (Circuit Court, S. D. California. No. 776.
MINERAI, LANDS-SUIT TO ESTABLISH ADVERSE CLAIM-JURISDICTION-AMOUN'l' INVOLVED.
June 12, 1899.)
In a suit brought In a circuit court, under Rev. St. I 2326, by an adverse clai!l1ant to establish his right ot possession to a mining claim, it Is essentllli tbat the bill should sbo,w the value ot the property In controversy to be .to bring the suit within the requirements ot the seneral
staffifeprescribil1.g the jtirisdletii6I1 of-the: It Isbetterptllt'!t!ce, also. ,to'mow affifunatlvely in tbe'biU tbe groupd in contl1oversy is a 1001"1 I>r clailn. I, '
On White,k:M:Qnroe and
' Ch'apniari,'for complainant. " i'.
ROSS, Oirc,1Jit The fact th3.t ;this suit. Wasp,l'()ught under and by virtue of section 2326 of. the United States not, ,I think, exempt ,the cwnplainant fro:r;n the of showing, tl;J,atthe value o,f tbe property in controversy is sufficient to bring it. within the requirement of.,thegeneral stat!1teprescribing the the, Qf the Unitep, S-pttes. Mining Co. v. Rutter,31 C. C. v.Harrington, 111 U. S. 350, 4 Sup. Ct. 428; Stras,burger y. Beech,eJ,',44 Fed. 213; Burke v. Concentrating 00., 46 Fed, 64'l<. . Whether necelilsary Or not, I think itis allilo better, ill' order to.saveap,y question iAoregard to the matter, that the bill sh()waffirmatively, andp.ot by,inference only, is, a lode or whether the ground in controYersy:between the placer claim.' An order,wiUbe entered demurrer, with, leave. to the complainant to amend the lj)j)l, witllin the \llilu,a\, time, if it shall be so. advised.
ANGLE et ill. v. CHICAGO, P. & , (CircUit ,Court,
'. , .;.<' · " ·
,i ( ;, : : ' "
, ' I ,\. ,
W:':6. Wisconsill.July 21,
FEDERAL CO'iJRTS...,.RuLES EDENT., " ,
Where"thlOl questions ar!$ing in a suit jna circuit court are the same as those involved iI). ,R' suit between other parties which has been determined by the' snprem,e :court, and, the 'evidence' material' to such quesdecision of the supreme court, while tions is substantially it does ,not render the questions 'res jUdicata, constitute!ii. a precedent which should,.'be followed by 1-; ,',-' "," ' . , court. ' inferior .,. .. ,',:; -'i'
OF St;PREM'E COURT AS. PREC,', ' , ..
This was a ,suit in equity, in the nature of a creditors'bill, brou.ght by Sarah RAngle, administratrix, and Thomas M. Nelson, administrator, of the estate of H. G. Angle, deceased, against the Chicago, Portage & Superior Railway Oompany, the Ohicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, and the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company. On final hearing. Burr W.Jones and F. J. Lamb, forcomplainantB. ' Thomas H. :Wilson, for defendants..
'j.' , ',,;,
BUNN, District Judge. It has not been, and is not now, my purpose to ,this case, put only to indicate very briedy, and in a general way, the conc1usionsieached, with the grounds on which they ave based; Each party on the hearing having indicated apurpose dftakingan appeal in the ah'adverse decision by Wis goes, up,yyill. stal;ld, f9r hearing :/;lovo in theappeUate court upon the same allegations and the same evidence