Unknown County GaArchives Court.....Montalet, Mr 1827 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/ga/gafiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Deb Haines ddhaines@gmail.com December 9, 2005, 2:36 am Source: Condensed Reports Of Cases In The Supreme Court Of The United States Written: 1827 Montalet v. Murray. 4 Cranch's Report, 46 to 47. page 19 If it does not appear upon the record that the character of the original parties will support the jurisdiction of the court, it cannot be sustained. [See note at the end of the case.] A suit on a promissory note cannot be maintained in the courts of the United States, in the hands of a subsequent holder, if the original parties to the note could not sue or be sued in those courts. [See note at the end of the case.] The courts of the United States have not jurisdiction in a case where both parties are aliens. In cases of reversal, costs do not go of course, but in cases of affirmances they do. When a judgment is reversed for want of jurisdiction, it must be without costs. [See note at the end of the case.] ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Georgia. In the circuit court, Murray, a citizen of New York, instituted a suit against Montalet, an alien and citizen of the French republic, upon certain promissory notes drawn by the defendant in St. Domingo, in favour of Caradeaux de la Caye. The declaration contained no allegation of the residence, citizenship, or neutral character of the drawee of the notes. In the plea it was stated that he was an alien and subject of France. An objection to the jurisdiction was taken, the record not showing that a suit upon the notes could be prosecuted in the circuit court of Georgia. The court were unanimously of opinion, that the courts of the United States have no jurisdiction in cases between aliens. It was suggested by the counsel for the defendant, that it did not sufficiently appear, that the original parties to the notes were aliens. MARSHALL, chief justice, said, that if it did not appear upon the record that the character of the original parties would support the jurisdiction; that objection was equally fatal, under the uniform decisions of this court. As to costs, the court directed: That in cases of reversal costs do not go of course, but in all cases of affirmance they do; and when a judgment is reversed for want of jurisdiction, it must be without costs. 2 Peters’s Digest, 555, "Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States." As to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, dependent on the character of the parties, see note to Bingham v. Cabot, 1 Condens. Rep. 170. As to costs, see 1 Peters’s Digest, 615. Source: Condensed Reports of Cases in The Supreme Court of the United States Containing the Whole Series of the Decisions of the Court from its Organization to the Commencement of Peters's Reports at January Term, 1827, with Copious Notes of Parallel Cases in the Supreme and Circuit Courts of the United States, Edited by Richard Peters, Counsellor at Law and Reporter of the Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Second Edition in Six Volumes, Vol. II. Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co, No. 253 Market Street, 1841 File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ga/unknown/court/montalet406gwl.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/gafiles/ File size: 3.6 Kb