Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/897

 GRBKNWALT V. TUCKEB. 885 �This case was heard on an agreed statement of facts, which bas the force of a special verdict. The plaintifi contends that, therefore, nothing is open for consideration or review on this motion, except the conclusions of law upon such agreed statement. That point would be well.taken if the motion embraced only what had heretofore been before the court, biit it urges, supported by affidavits, that from facts brought to the knowledge of defendants since the trial, and which could not, by due diligence, have been previously ascertained, a fraud on the jurisdiction of the court had been perpetrated in this, to-wit: That the plaintif had no interest in the eontroversy; that one Eeinders, having the tax title in question, executed and acknowl- edged a deed in blank as to the grantee; that he left that paper with his attorney "for collection," (whatever that may mean;) that said attorney filled the blank with the name of the non-resident plaintiff for the mere purpose of bringing suit in her name in the United States court, she not having paid any consideration therefor. The question involved is not free from the embarrassments arising from several decisions, mainly concerning the transfer of promissory notes, etc. Under the judiciary act (1789) the transfer of such notes, etc., even honafide and for value, was subjected to a restriction, in order to avoid an attempt to draw into the federal courts the adjudication of questions therein which could be as well and ought to be determined in the state courts, in which and under whose laws said contracta were made.' Hence, that act denied to United States courts jurisdic- tion "of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment had been made, except in cases of foreign bills of exchange." Under that act there have been many decisions, which it is not necessary to review. �The act of 1875, which has in many respects enlarged the juris- diction of United States courts to an almost indefinite extent, con- tains this provision: �"Nor shall any circuit or district court have eognizance of any suit founded on contra«t in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court, to recover tliereon, if no assignment had been made, except in cases of promissory notes, negotiable by the law merchant, and bills of exchange." �The change in the language of the act of 187.5, on the subject quoted, may be only another form of expressing, in the light of decisions, what had been held to be the true interpretation of the act ��� �