Blacklock v. Small

Citations

• 127 U.S. 96
• 8 S. Ct. 1096
• 32 L. Ed. 70
• 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1968

Syllabus

<p>Two plaintiffs, citizens of Georgia, brought a suit in equity! in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District, of South Carolina, against S., a citizen of South Carolina, and H., a sister of the plaintiffs, also a citizen of South Carolina, to set aside the alleged payment by S. to R., another defendant, of a bond and mortgage given by him to- B., the father of the plaintiffs and of H., and to have the satisfaction of the.-.:mortgage annulled, and the bond and mortgage delivered up by S., and the bond paid, and the mortgaged premises sold. Before the alleged payment to R., B. had assigned the bond to R., in trust for the three children. When the suit was brought, B was a citizen of South Carolina : Held, that, as B. could not have brought the suit, the Circuit Court was forbidden to take cognizance of it, by § 1 of the act of March 3, 1873, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470?</p> <p>This suit was a suit founded on contract, in favor of an assignee, and was not a suit founded on the wrongful detention by S. of.the bond and mortgage.</p> <p>The defendant H., by answer, joined in the prayer of the bill, and asked to have the bond and mortgage declared valid in the hands of R., as trustee, for the benefit of H.'and the plaintiff's, and for a decree that S. pay to H. and the pontiff's the amount secured by the bond and mortgage: Held, that as H. and S. were, when the suit was brought, both of them citizens of South Carolina, the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction.</p> <p>As that court had dismissed the bill on the merits, with costs, and the plaintiff’s and H. had appealed to this court, the decree was reversed, with costs in this court against the appellants, and the case was remanded, with a direction to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction, without costs of that court.</p>