Dromgoole v. Farmers' and Merchants' Bank of Mississippi

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern district of Mississippi.

In 1838, the following promissory note was executed:

2899 50-100

Princeton, Washington Co., May 17th, 1838.

On the 1st of January, 1839, we, or either of us, promise to pay to the order of Briggs, L acoste and Co., two thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine 50-100 dollars for value received, payable and negotiable at the Planters' Bank of Mississippi, at Natchez.

WILL. A. DROMGOOLE,

F. G. TURNBULL.

The makers and payees were all residents of the state of Mississippi. L acoste, in the partnership name, endorsed it to the Farmers' and Merchants' Bank of Memphis, the stockholders of which are alleged to reside in Tennessee. The bank brought suit upon it in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Mississippi. The suit was brought against Dromgoole and Turnbull as the makers, and also against L acoste; the junction being permitted by a statute of Mississippi. The defendants pleaded in abatement as follows:

'And the said defendants, who are citizens of the state of Mississippi, in their own proper persons, come and defend the wrong and injury, and say: that the persons composing the commercial firm of Briggs, L acoste and Co., to whom the said promissory note declared upon was made and delivered at the time of its date and delivery, then were, and are yet, citizens of and resident in the state of Mississippi, and were so at the time of the supposed transfer and delivery of the said promissory note to the said plaintiffs, by reason whereof, this honorable court cannot in law have or entertain jurisdiction of this cause, and this they, the said defendants are ready to verify. Wherefore, the said defendants pray judgment of the said writ and declaration, and that the same may be quashed.

SANDERS, for defendants.'

To this plea the plaintiffs demurred, and the court sustained the demurrer. Judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiffs, and to review the opinion of the court upon the demurrer, the present writ of error was brought.

The case was argued by Walker for the appellants, who relied upon the cases in 16 Pet., 86 and 315.

Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the court.