Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/462

45 e FEDEEAL EEPORTEE. �McCrary, J., {orally). This is a suit on bonds issued by the county of Ealls on the tenth day of February, 1870. Plaintiiï is a citizen of the state of Indiana, and brings suit upon the bonds in this court. There is a plea fo the juris- diction. No question is made as to the citizenship of the parties, nor is it claimed that there is anything to bar the jurisdiction of this court except a recent statute of the state of Missouri, which is found in section 5359 cf the Eevised Statutes of Missouri of 1879, providing as foUows: "Ail actions whatsoever, against any county, shall be commenced in the circuit court of such county, and prosecuted to final judgment and execution therein, unless removed by change of venue to some other county, in which case the action or actions so removed shall be prosecuted to final judgment and execution in the circuit court of such other county." �This is an amendment to a previous statute, which read as follows: "Ail actions, local or transitory, against any county, may be commenced and prosecuted to final judgment in the circuit court of the county against which the action is brought." 1 Wagner St. 408, § 4. �In a case against Lincoln county, brought before this court Bometime ago, there was a plea to the jurisdiction, under the original statute above quoted, which was overruled, (7 Cent. Law J. 264,) Judge Dillon expressing the decided opinion that ,the statute did not take the case out of the jurisdiction of this court. He further said that if the statute was in- tended to have this effect it would, under the ruling in the case of Insurance Go. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445, be unconstitu- tional; and he added: "We cannot assent to the conclusion that it is within the power of the state to create politieal bodies capable of contracting debts with eitizens of other states, and yet privileged against being. compelled to pay those obligations by suit in the national courts." �It will be seen that no stress was placed upon the fact that �the language of that act was permissive, using the word �"may" instead of "shall," but the ruling was put upon the �ground that the jurisdiction of the federal courts cannot be �interfered with by state legislation. The recent statute, if ��� �