Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/422

 410 FBDBBAL EEPORIEK, �Here is a distinct and independent cause of action given by tiie last clause of the section. The plaintiff's allegations are founded upon facts which he claims bring him within the terms of this sec- tion. The gravamen of his action is fraud, and he prays judgment for damages. It may have been necessary for him to set out the judgment and show that an execution has been returned unsatisfied, to meet the conditions of the 1083d section, but the judgment is not the foundation of his action. He has a controversy with new parties distinct from that upon which the judgment was rendered; He seeks io establish a new liabilityagainst these new parties. �It is further argued by defendant that this action cannot be main- tained here because it is in the nature of an action to enforee iastat- utory penalty. To this the answer is that it is hot an action to recover penalties, but unliquidated damages. It is a civil, not a penal action. Its object is not punishment, but indemnity for a civil injury. It is to no purpose to say that the same section of the stat- utes provides for the punishment of the ofience committed by the defendants as a crime. It is not unusual foc the same statute thus to provide for indemnity by civil action to the individual injured, and ■protection to the public by penal action and indictment. �The motion to remand in this case is denied. �Note, Proceedings in garnishment process are ancillary to tJie main suit, and they cannot be removed after judgment, Fratt v. Albright, 9 Fed. Bep. 634.— [Ed, ���Mabion V. Ellis,* �{Circuit Court, E. D. Lovuiana. February 14, 1882. ) JuliiSDicTioN OF Circuit Courts — Tbansfer opNegotiable Paper to Givb �JUEISDICTIOH. �Where a citizen of one state transfers mortgage notes lield by Lim to a citi- zen of another state, or a foreigner, wlio thereupon, by virtue of his citizenship, brings suit upon the same in a circuit court, the circuit court will take juris- diction of such a suit, although the transfer was inade for the purpose of giving the court jurisdietion, provided such transfer be not accorapanied with an agreement to retransfer the property to the grantor after the termination of the litigation. The court, in the absence of such agreement, will not inquire into the motives which induced the transfer. �Be iMveaga v. Williams, 6 Sawy. 574, followed. ���•Reported by Joseph P. Horuor, Esq., of the A'ew Orleans bar. ��� �