Search Supreme Court Cases
DROMGOOLE V. FARMERS' & MERCHANTS' BANK, 43 U. S. 241 (1844)
U.S. Supreme Court
Dromgoole v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, 43 U.S. 2 How. 241 241 (1844)
Dromgoole v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank
43 U.S. (2 How.) 241
A statute of Mississippi allows suit to be brought against the maker and payee, jointly, of a promissory note, by the endorsee.
But an action of this kind cannot be maintained in the courts of the United States, although the plaintiff resides in another state, provided the maker and payee of the note both reside in Mississippi.
In 1838, the following promissory note was executed:
"2899 50-100 Princeton, Washington Co., May 17, 1838"
"On 1 January, 1839, we, or either of us, promise to pay to the order of Briggs, Lacoste & Co., two thousand eight hundred and ninetynine 50100 dollars for value received, payable and negotiable at the Planters' Bank of Mississippi, at Natchez."
"WILL. A. DROMGOOLE"
"F. G. TURNBULL"
The makers and payees were all residents of the State of Mississippi. Lacoste, in the partnership name, endorsed it to the Farmers' and Merchants' Bank of Memphis, the stockholders of which are alleged to reside in Tennessee. The bank brought suit upon it in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Mississippi. The suit was brought against Dromgoole and Turnbull as the makers, and also against Lacoste, the junction being permitted by a statute of Mississippi. The defendants pleaded in abatement as follows:
"And the said defendants, who are citizens of the State of Mississippi, in their own proper persons, come and defend the wrong and injury, and say that the persons composing the commercial firm of Briggs, Lacoste & Co., to whom the said promissory note declared upon was made and delivered at the time of its date and delivery, then were, and are yet, citizens of and resident in the State of Mississippi, and were so at the time of the supposed transfer and delivery of the said promissory note to the said plaintiffs, by reason whereof, this honorable court cannot in law have or entertain jurisdiction of this cause, and this they, the said defendants are ready to verify. Wherefore the said defendants pray judgment of the said writ and declaration, and that the same may be quashed."
"SANDERS, for defendants"
To this plea the plaintiffs demurred, and the court sustained the demurrer. Judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiffs, and to review the opinion of the court upon the demurrer, the present writ of error was brought.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.