Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/382

MASVIN V. ELUS. 367 �Maevin V. Ellis." (Circuit Court, S. D. Louisiana. November 15, 1881.) �1. Promibsoet Notes — Action on— Parties. �The assignee ci a mortgage note can bring suit upon it, whoever the real owner may be, unless it was assigned for the purpose of depriving the mort- gagor of a substantial ground of defence against the real owner, �2. JUBISDICTION— CiTIZBNSHIP— FrATJD. �The circuit court bas no jurisdiction of a cause on the ground of the citizen- ship of the parties, where the nominal parties to the suit are not the reslpar^ ties, but have been made parties collusively, to bring the controversy within the jurisdiction of the court. �In Chancery. On demurrer to cross-bill for inj miction. �Complainant filed a bill in equity to foreclose his mortgage upon the plan- tation of defendant, and, under the statutes of Louisiana, prayed for a writ of seizure and sale, directed to the marshal to seize and sell the same to pay his debt, which writ duly issued, and the plantation was seized and advertised for sale. The defendant then appeared, and, under a rule of this court, flled a cross-bill, in the nature of what is known in the state practice as an opposi- tion to the writ of seizure and sale, and alleged that the plaintiff was not the true and lawful owner of the mortgage notes sued upon, but was a party interposed for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to this court ; the real holders and owners being citizens of the saine state.as defendant, an.d iagainst whom defendant had equities to plead, which he sets up. Complainant then flled a general demurrer to the cross-bill, and the case was argued oh that. �Geo. L. Bright, ior <iomT^\e,mdM,. ' ^ �' A'^ic^oZZs ce CarroM, for defendant. �Pabdee, 0. J. Everything alleged in the petition or cross-bill of defendant may be true, with the exception hereafter noted, and yet he can have no relief — is entitled to none... The assignment toMaifvin of the notes sued on, no matter what the interest actually conveyed, vests the title sufficiently in him to sue ; and Louisiana authority is clear to that effect. Defendant bas no rightto inquire whether the plaintiflf, in whom the legal title appears to be vested, be an agent or the real owner, unless, by a fictitious assignment, it be attempted to deprive him of substantial grounds of defence which he may have against the true owner. The judgment will be rea adjudicata against every one who might afterwards claim an interest in the note or bill. See Hennen's Digest, 180, No. 5, and authorities there cited, partio.u- larly 14 La. 256. The plaintiff having a sufficient title to bring suit, Sind being a citizen of another state, while the defendant is a citizen pf this state, the suit may be brought in this court. See section 1 of �*BeppTted by Joseph P. Hornorj Esq.,of the New Orleans bar. ■. ^ : ��� �