Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Montalet v. Murray 8 U.S. 46

← Cases

Montalet v. Murray

8 U.S. 46 4 Cranch 46 Court SCOTUS English

Delivered by Majority

Contents

Majority

p. 29
Montalet v. Murray.[1]

Syllabus

Jurisdiction. — Costs.
When both parties are aliens, the courts of the United States have not jurisdiction.[2]
If it do not appear upon the record, that a suit might have been maintained in the courts of the United States, between the original parties to a promissory note, no suit can be maintained upon it, in those courts, by any subsequent holder.[3]
Costs are not given, upon reversal of judgment.
Error to the Circuit Court for the district of Georgia. The action was brought in the court below by Murray, a citizen of the state of New York, against Montalet, an alien, and citizen of the French republic, upon sundry promissory notes, made by the defendant, at St. Domingo, ‘‘'payable to the order of Monsieur Caradeaux de la Caye, whose residence, or *- citizenship, or national character, did not appear in the declaration.
It was suggested, that it did not appear by the record, that a suit could have been prosecuted in that court, to recover the contents of those notes, if no assignment had been made, and therefore, the court could not take cognisance of the present case, being prohibited by the act of congress, (1 U. S. Stat. 78, § 11.)
P. J3. Key, for the defendant in error,
stated, that it appeared in the plea, that the payee of the note was also an alien, and subject of France. Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8 .

The Court was unanimously of opinion, that the courts of the United States have no jurisdiction of cases between aliens.

Key then suggested, that perhaps it did not sufficiently appear upon the record, that the original parties to the notes were aliens ; But—

Marshall, Ch. J., 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.

Judgment reversed, for want of jurisdiction, and with costs, under the authority of Winchester v. Jackson (3 Cr. 514).

p. 30
But on the last day of the term, The Court gave the following general directions to the clerk. That in cases of reversal, costs do not go, of course, but in all cases of affirmance, they do. And that when a judgment is reversed, for want of jurisdiction, it must be, without costs.

Cases cited