Citizens Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Sexton

Citations

• 264 U.S. 310
• 44 S. Ct. 338
• 68 L. Ed. 703
• 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2509

Syllabus

<p>1. Where the parties to a note and mortgage are citizens of the same State, jurisdiction to collect the note by foreclosure of the mortgage and deficiency judgment does not exist in the District Court through diversity of citizenship, if one of the defendants is a citizen of that State and the plaintiff, although of another State, acquired the obligations by assignment from the original obligee. Jud. Code, § 24. P. 312.</p> <p>2. While this restriction does not apply to a plaintiff who, although nominally the assignee, was really the payee, the evidence in the present case fails to sustain the allegation that the payee named in the note acted as the maker’s broker in securing the loan from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was at all times the beneficial owner of the paper. P. 313.</p> <p>3. The rule that the restriction of Jud. Code, § 24, does not prevent a suit by the assignee on a new and subsequent agreement is inapplicable where the suit is for foreclosure of a mortgage and the relief sought by a deficiency judgment, against a purchaser of the property who assumed its payment, is merely ancillary and incidental to the primary purpose of the bill. Id.</p>