Mullen v. Torrance
ERROR to the District Court of Mississippi.
An endorsee of a promissory note, who resides in a different State, may sue, in the Circuit Court, his immediate endorser, residing in the State in which the suit is brought, although that endorser be a resident of the same State with the maker of the note.
But where the suit is brought against a remote endorser, and the plaintiff, in his declaration, traces his title through an intermediate endorser, he must show that this intermediate endorser could have sustained his action in the Circuit Court.
A plea to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court must show that the parties were citizens of the same State, at the time the action was brought, and not merely at the time of the plea pleaded. The jurisdiction depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought; and after it is once vested, it cannot be ousted by a subsequent change of residence of either of the parties. March 6th.
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
^a He cited Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheat. Rep. 146. Dugan v. U.S., 3 Wheat. Rep. 180. Chitty. Bills, 149. 370.
^b He cited Turner v. Bank of N. Amer. 4 Dall. 8. Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 46.