Gibson Vs. Chew

Gibson vs Chew

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1842

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/79790

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/79790
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1842
Case Number: 41 U.S. 315
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gibson

Respondent

Chew

Excerpt

.....and endorsed over to the plaintiff. the declaration set out the promissory note, the maker and endorser of the same being included in the same writ under the provisions of an act of the legislature of mississippi which had been adopted as a rule of practice in the circuit court by order of the district judge holding the circuit court. the defendants appeared to the action and, having demurred to the plaintiff's declaration, filed the following causes of demurrer: 1. this court has no jurisdiction, the plaintiff, in his declaration, being the assignee of kinchen a. martin who is a citizen of the same state with the maker of the note sued on, as declaration avers. 2. the declaration does not aver defendants to be residents of the southern district of mississippi. the demurrer was overruled, and the defendants having refused to plead to the merits of the action, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. the defendants prosecuted this writ of error. page 41 u. s. 316 wayne, justice, delivered the opinion of the court. this suit was brought in the circuit court of the united states for the southern district of mississippi by the defendant in error, as the endorsee of a promissory note made in mississippi of which the plaintiff in error, martin, was the payee, and the plaintiff, gibson, the maker, both maker and payee being citizens of the state of mississippi when the note was made. the jurisdiction of the court is denied, and the plea should have been sustained in the court below, as the circuit courts of the united states have not cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of an assignee unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment had been made, except in cases of foreign bills of exchange. see the 11th section of the act to establish the judicial courts of the united states, 1 story's laws 53. .....

Full Judgment

Gibson v. Chew - 41 U.S. 315 (1842)
U.S. Supreme Court Gibson v. Chew, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 315 315 (1842)

Gibson v. Chew

41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 315

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE UNITED STATES FOR MISSISSIPPI

SYLLABUS

The circuit courts of the United States have not cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of an assignee unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment had been made, except in cases of foreign bills of exchange.

An action was instituted in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi by Beverly Chew, a citizen of the State of Louisiana, against John A. Gibson and Kinchen A. Martin, citizens of the State of Louisiana. The action was brought to recover the amount of a promissory note drawn by John A. Gibson in favor of and endorsed by Kinchen A. Martin for $3,500 and endorsed over to the plaintiff.

The declaration set out the promissory note, the maker and endorser of the same being included in the same writ under the provisions of an act of the Legislature of Mississippi which had been adopted as a rule of practice in the circuit court by order of the district judge holding the circuit court. The defendants appeared to the action and, having demurred to the plaintiff's declaration, filed the following causes of demurrer:

1. this court has no jurisdiction, the plaintiff, in his declaration, being the assignee of Kinchen A. Martin who is a citizen of the same state with the maker of the note sued on, as declaration avers.

2. the declaration does not aver defendants to be residents of the Southern District of Mississippi.

The demurrer was overruled, and the defendants having refused to plead to the merits of the action, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants prosecuted this writ of error.

Page 41 U. S. 316

WAYNE, JUSTICE, delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi by the defendant in error, as the endorsee of a promissory note made in Mississippi of which the plaintiff in error, Martin, was the payee, and the plaintiff, Gibson, the maker, both maker and payee being citizens of the State of Mississippi when the note was made.

The jurisdiction of the court is denied, and the plea should have been sustained in the court below, as the circuit courts of the United States have not cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of an assignee unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment had been made, except in cases of foreign bills of exchange. See the 11th section of the act to establish the judicial courts of the United States, 1 Story's Laws 53.

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Same Parties Gibson vs Chew Same Subject MRTP

MRTP plaintiff in error chose in action promissory note district judge