§ 719. Same-Same-Bill for specific performance.-The words of the statute, "the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action," though infelicitously chosen by the legislature, were designed to embrace, and do embrace, the rights created and conferred by those instruments which are capable of enforcement by suit; and a bill in equity seeking the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land is within the inhibition of the statute, and the federal courts have no jurisdiction of such a bill by an assignee of such a contract, unless the suit could have been maintained by the assignor if no assignment had been made.98 § 720. Same Same-Exceptions-Notes of corporation payable to bearer.-Notes made by a corporation and payable to bearer are expressly excepted from the operation of the statutory provision in regard to suits by the assignee of a chose in action; and this exception, expressed in the words, "any corporation," includes municipal as well as private corporations, and an assignee or subsequent holder of such notes issued by a municipal corporation, being a citizen of a state different from that of the debtor corporation, is entitled to sue upon them in a federal court without reference to the citizenship of any prior holder.99 § 721. Same-Same-Same-Foreign bills of exchange.Foreign bills of exchange are also excepted from the operation of the statutory restriction upon the right of assignees of choses in action to sue in the federal courts; and a bill of exchange drawn in one of the states of the union upon persons living in another state is, within the meaning of the act, a foreign bill of exchange, and a holder or assignee of it may maintain suit upon it in the federal court where diversity of citizenship exists between him and the payor without reference to the citizenship of a prior holder.1 can Colortype Co. v. Continental Colortype Co., 188 U. S. 104-108 (47:404), and authorities there cited. 98 Shoecraft v. Bloxham, 124 U. S. 730-736 (31:574); Corbin v. Blockham County, 105 U. S. 659667 (26:1136); Plant Investment Co. v. Ry. Co., 152 U. S. 71-77 (38:358). 99 Loeb v. Trustees of Columbia Township, 179 U. S. 472-494 (45: 280); Thompson v. Perrine, 106 U. S. 589-593 (27:298); Lake County v. Dudley, 173 U. S. 243 (43:684); Andes v. Ely, 158 U. S. 132 (39:996); New Orleans v. Quinlan, 173 U. S. 191 (43:664). 1 Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet. 586 (7:528); Dickens v. Beal, 10 Pet. § 722. Same Same-The fact of assignment.-Whether or not there has been in fact an endorsement and assignment of a promissory note is, as between the original parties, always open to inquiry, and parol evidence is admissible to show the real relation of the parties; and, although the transaction, for the convenience of the parties in carrying out a lawful purpose, has been given the form of an endorsement and assignment, if there was, in fact, no assignment, but the nominal assignee was the first taker of the note and furnished directly the consideration for its execution, and the nominal endorser made the endorsement before delivery, and as a maker, then the provision of the statute does not apply, and the holder of the note may, if diversity of citizenship exists between him and the parties signing the note, maintain suit on it in a federal court without reference to the citizenship of the endorser.2 § 723. Same-Several plaintiffs and defendants.-When it is sought to maintain the jurisdiction of a federal circuit court over a suit upon the ground that it is between citizens of different states, if there are several co-plaintiffs, each plaintiff must be competent to sue, and, if there are several co-defendants, each defendant must be liable to be sued, in that court or the jurisdiction will fail; but the rule is not infringed by the fact that, in a suit brought by two plaintiffs against one defendant, between whom and plaintiffs there is diversity of citizenship, the plaintiff's themselves are not citizens of the same state.1 § 724. Jurisdiction of suits between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects.-The circuit courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, in which there is a controversy between 572 (9:538); Nelson v. First Nat. 2 Holmes v. Goldsmith & Co., 147 U. S. 150-164 (37:118); Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 400-489 (50: 801). 3 Susquehannah & W. Valley R. Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172 178 (20:179); Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U. S. 395-399 (41:1049); Bank v. Slocomb, 14 Pet. 60-66 (10: 354); Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694-708 (34:1078); Strawbridge v. Curtis, 3 Cranch, 267 (4:435); New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91 (4:444). 4 Sweeney v. Carter Oil Co., 199 U. S. 252-259 (50:178). 5 citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects, and in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars; and the jurisdiction is unaffected by the fact that the foreign citizen resides in this country and in the state of the residence of the adverse party, or by the fact that he is the consul of a foreign state." But the circuit courts have no jurisdiction of a suit where both parties are citizens or subjects of a foreign state, unless it be cne arising under the constitution or a law or a treaty of the United States; and an Indian residing in a state of the Union is not, within the meaning of the judiciary acts, a citizen or subject of a foreign state." § 725. Same-Corporation created by a foreign state a citizen thereof.-A corporation created by the laws of a foreign state is, within the meaning of the second section of the third article of the federal constitution extending the judicial power of the United States to controversies "between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects," and within the meaning of the federal judiciary acts distributing that judicial power, a citizen or subject of the foreign state under and by virtue of whose laws it has been created, and is a competent party, either as plaintiff or defendant, to sustain the jurisdiction of a federal circuit court in a suit at law or in equity in which the jurisdiction is based upon the fact that the suit involves a controversy between parties of the character above mentioned; and where such foreign corporation is defendant, the suit may be maintained in a circuit court of the United States in any district in which valid service of process can be made upon such defendant.1o 5 25 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 866, sec. 1, p. 434. 6 Breedlove v. Nicolet, 7 Pet. 413 (8:731). 7 Bors v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252263 (28:419); St. Lukes Hospital v. Barclay, 3 Blatch. 259, Fed. cas. No. 12,241; Gittings v. Crawford, 1 Taney, 1. 8 Pooley v. Luco, 72 Fed. R. 563; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 4648 (2:545); Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136 (7:374); Laird v. § 726. Jurisdiction of suits in which the United States are plaintiffs. The circuit courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at law or in equity, in which the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, without regard to the sum or value of the matter in dispute.11 11 § 727. Jurisdiction founded on claim to lands under grant of different states.-The circuit courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at law or in equity, in which there is a controversy between citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants of different states, without regard to the sum or value of the matter in dispute.12 § 728. The amount in dispute-In what classes of cases the jurisdictional sum or value of two thousand dollars is necessary to maintain jurisdiction.—It is within the competency of congress, in distributing to the circuit courts the judicial power, to make the jurisdiction in any class of cases depend upon a specified sum or value, and to vest jurisdiction in other classes of cases without regard to the amount in controversy; and that policy has been followed in the judiciary act now in force, defining the jurisdiction of the circuit courts which they exercise concurrently with the courts of the several states. That act vests the circuit courts with jurisdiction over five classes of cases, and in three of the classes it is an essential element of the jurisdiction that the matter in dispute shall exceed, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and in two of the classes the jurisdiction is vested without regard to the sum or value in controversy. The three classes of cases in which the jurisdictional sum or value of two thousand dollars is requisite are: (1) Suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made or which Tugman, 106 U. S. 118-123 (27: 87). 11 25 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 866, sec. 1, p. 434; United States v. Sayward, 160 U. S. 494 (40:508); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States, 203 U. S. 204349 (51:516); United States v. Shaw, 39 Fed. R. 433, 3 L. R. A. 12 25 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 866, sec. 1, p. 434; United States v. Sayward, 160 U. S. 494 (40:508). shall be made under their authority; (2) suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states; and (3) suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects. The two classes of cases in which the jurisdiction is given without regard to the sum or value of the matter in dispute are: (1) Suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity in which the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners; and (2) suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states.13 § 729. Same-Rules for determining the amount in dispute The determination of what is the amount in dispute, within the meaning of the federal judiciary acts, often presents questions. of some intricacy and difficulty, and the subject has called forth many decisions of the supreme court, in which some legal rules. have been declared for the guidance of the courts of original jurisdiction; but, notwithstanding those learned decisions, giving construction to the jurisdictional clause of the judiciary acts, and the formulation and announcement of legal rules, the difficulties of the subject still abide with us and are a constant source of litigation. In defining the amount in controversy within the meaning of the judiciary act defining the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, the supreme court applies to the question the same legal rules and principles which it applied to the determination of the same question arising under the legislation defining its own appellate jurisdiction during the long series of years when that jurisdiction was made to depend upon a specified sum or value, and the decisions of the court upon the amount in controversy as to its own jurisdiction are cited by it in questions arising out of the amount in controversy in regard to the jurisdiction of the circuit court; and it is, therefore, established that the legal rules and principles applied in determining the amount in controversy in the circuit courts are pre 13 25 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 866, sec. 1, p. 434; United States v. Sayward, 160 U. S. 493-498 (40:508); Fishback v. Western Union Tel. Co., 161 U. S. 96-101 (40:630); |