Sanford v. Portsmouth
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan
On demurrer to a plea to the jurisdiction. Action of assumpsit upon certain interest warrants or coupons annexed to bonds issued by the town of Portsmouth to aid in the construction of a plank road. Defendant pleaded to the jurisdiction upon the ground that assumpsit would not lie, insisting that mandamus was the only proper remedy. Plaintiff [Horatio W. Sanford] demurred.
1Opinion of the Court
BROWN, District Judge.
As the point was not raised by counsel it is not necessary here to decide, whether a plea to the jurisdiction is a proper mode of taking advantage of a defect apparent upon the face of the declaration, where the form of the remedy only is in question. That assumpsit is a proper action upon securities of this kind is settled, at least so far as the federal courts are concerned, in Town of Queensbury v. Culver, 19 Wall. [86 U. S.] 83, 92. See, also, Heine v. Levee *364Com’rs, Id. 635, 657. While the question has not been directly decided elsewhere, there is a multitude of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- NUDD v. Burrows, AssigneeSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Township of Marathon v. Township of OregonMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
- Township of Dayton v. RoundsMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- McArthur v. Township of DuncanMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wall v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1899
- Patten v. CilleyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire · 1891