Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/735

 THIBD NAT. BANK OF ST. LOUIS V. HABBISON. 721 �ImBD Nat. Bank of St. Louis ». Habeison and another. �{Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. September 22, 1881.) �STATtJTBS— Construction of— Rbfeal bt Implication. �An earlier statute is only repealed by a later one when their provisions can- not be reconciled. �2. Saub — Samb. �A later statute which is general and affirmative in its provisions will not abrogate a former one which is particular or special. �3. Sahb — Samb. �An exposition of a statute which will revoke or alter by construction of gen- erai words « previens general statute should not be adopted where the words may have their proper operation without it. �4. AoT OF Maech 3, 1875, Conbtbttbd. �The act of March 3, 1875, " to determine the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States, to regulate the removal of causes from the gtate courts, and for other purposes," did not repeal chapter 10, § 629, of the Revised Statutes. �B. JUBIBDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS IN NATIONAL BANK CASBB— ReV. Bt. {629, «. 10. �Circuit courts have jurisdiction over suits by or against national banks with- out regard to the questions in controversy. 8. Bamb— Rbv. 8t. § 740. �Where there are two districts in a state a national bank may bring a suit not of a local nature in the circuit court of the one in which it is located against two or more defendants, one or more of whom reside in the other district, if one of them resides in the district in which suit is brought. �This is an action brought by the plaintiff, a corporation organized under the national banking act, against the defendants to recover judgment upon a certain promissory note exeeuted by the defendant Harrison to his co-defendant Alexander, and by the latter assigned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a national bank, located in the city of St. Louis, Missouri, and the defendants are citizens of the state of Missouri, the defendant Harrison being a citizen of the western district thereof. Upon these facts the defendant Harrison moves to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction. �Dyer & Ellia, for plaintiff. �Alexander Graves, for defendant. �MgCeaey, C. J., (orally.) It is insisted by counsel for defendant — First, that this court has no jurisdiction in the case under the act of congress, approved March 3, 1875, entitled "An act to determine the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States, and to reg- ulate the removal of causes from the state courts, and for other pur- poses, " which act, it is insisted, repeals all prior acts upon the sub- ject of the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, including the provision v.8,no.l0— 46 ��� �