Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/550

536 FEDERAL REPORTER. �upon requested the court to instruct the jury to render a verdict for the defendant, or to dismiss the action, upon the ground that the said instruments are not promissory notes negotiable by the law merchant ; and that, as this court would not have had jurisdietion of an action if brought thereon by said Stillman before the assignment thereof, therefore it had no jurisdietion of the same as brought by this plaintiff. The court declined and refused so to instruct the jury, or to dismiss the action, and held and decided that the court had jurisdietion of the action. To such refusai and decision the defend- ant duly excepted. The defendant also requested the court to direct a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the instruments sued upon were not promissory notes, negotiable by the law merchant, but were sealed instruments; and that the signature of the defendant upon the back thereof did not croate any obligation to pay the same. The court refused so to instruct the jury, and the defendant excepted. The defendant further requested the court to direct a verdict for the defendant on the ground that, under the oircumstance of this case, the signature of "Henry Morgan, President," on the back of said instrument, is not an individual indorsement and does not create any individual liability. The court refused so to instruct the jury, and to such refusai the defendant excepted. The defendant then requested the court to submit, as a question of fact, to the jury whether it was the intention of the said Morgan and the said Stillman that the in- dorsements of the name of "Henry Morgan, President," upon the backs of said instruments, should create any individual liability against the defendant Morgan. The court refused to submit such question to the jury, to which the defendant excepted. The court then, at the request of the plaintiff, direoted the jury to render a ver- dict in favor of the plaintiff for $30,787.89, being the amount of said instruments, with the interest thereon. The defendant excepted to the ruling and decision direoting the jury to render said verdict, and said verdict was rendered. �The question of jurisdietion is a controlling one, for, if this court has no jurisdietion of this action, the other questions raised are im- material. It is provided by section 1 of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. at Large, 470,) that no circuit court shall "have cognizance of any suit founded on contract in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover thereon if no assignment had bsen made, except in cases of promissory notes ne- gotiable by the law merchant and bills of exchange." This suit is one founded on a contract made by the defendant Morgan. It is in ��� �