De Sobry v. Nicholson
Supreme Court of the United States
The Judiciary Act declares tbat the assignee of a chose in action shall not recover in a suit brought on it in the Federal courts, “ unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such courts, &c., if no assignment had been made .” With this provision in force, a partnership in Pennsylvania, of which a certain Nicholson was one member, and Armstrong and others the remaining partners, made a contract with De Sobry, of Louisiana, “ to build a mill” on his plantation.
Read the full summary
The Judiciary Act declares tbat the assignee of a chose in action shall not recover in a suit brought on it in the Federal courts, “ unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such courts, &c., if no assignment had been made .” With this provision in force, a partnership in Pennsylvania, of which a certain Nicholson was one member, and Armstrong and others the remaining partners, made a contract with De Sobry, of Louisiana, “ to build a mill” on his plantation. The Pennsylvania partnership, after the contract was made, went into liquidation, Nicholson remaining the liquidating partner; and…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Swayne
No exception can be considered here which was not taken in the court below.*
The point relied upon to reverse the judgment is not that the copartners of the plaintiff below could not assign their interests in the original contract so as to vest in him the right to sue in his own name alone, but that one of the assignors was, at the time of the commencement of the action, a citizen and resident of the same State with the defendant, and that hence the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction.
To this there are two answers.
The objection to jurisdiction upon the ground of citizenship, in actions at law,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McDonald v. SmalleySupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Livingston's v. StorySupreme Court of the United States · 1837
3Cited by1 opinion
- De Sobry v. NicholsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1866