Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/193

This page needs to be proofread.

183 FEDERAL REPORTER. �pears, from an inspection of these notices, that Bissell claims four-twelfths of the fund in his own right, and three-twelfths as agent and attorney for one C. J. Eeynolds, and that Foss and Hunter deny ail daims on behalf of said Eeynolds. The plaintiffs in the original bill, Foss and Hunter, instituted this proceeding in order to settle the controversy as to the proper division of the fund, and pray decree directing payment to them of their alleged share, to-wit: eight-twelfths thereof. Defendant Bissell answers, claiming, in his own right and as representing C. J. Eeynolds, to be entitled to seven-twelfths. �The bank answers, among other things, that it bas no interest in the fund, and is only holding it as a depository, and does not know to which of the claimants it ought of right to render and pay the same. Of the cross-bill filed by the bank I will Bpeak presently. The defendant Bissell moves to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The motion is urged upon the ground that ail the parties are shown by the bill to be citizens of the Btate of Colorado, and that there is no jurisdiction under the national bank act, because the First National Bank of Denver appears, by the record, to be only a nominal party, with- out interest in the litigation. �1. It may be regarded as settled that national banks may eue and be sued in the federal courts by virtue of the pro- visions of section 629 of the Eevised Statutes of the United States, which provides as foUows : �' "Section 629 — Jurisdiction. The circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction as foUows ;**»*****

  • Tenth — Of ail suits by or against any banking association

e^ablished in the district for which the court is held, under any law providing for national banking associations.' " First Nat. Bk. Omaha v. Countyof Douglas, 3 Dillon, 298; Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank, 14 Wall. 383-395; Kennedy y. Gibson et al. 8 Wall. 498. �Under a similar provision of the charter of the United Btates Bank of 1816, a question was made as to the power of congress to confer jurisdiction upon a federal court in a pase not necessarily involving the construction or the validity of a law of the United States, or of some provision of the consti- ����