Glass v. Police Jury of the Parish of Concordia
This was a suit brought in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana by William C. Glass, a citizen of the state of Missouri, against the parish of Concordia, to recover on certain warrants or orders for levee work; and, having been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, came to this court on the following certificate:

'This cause was tried at the present term of the court solely on the defendant's exception to the jurisdiction of the court, and it appearing from the jurisdictional facts alleged in plaintiff's petition, admitted to be true by said exception, that the warrants and orders sued on were payable to the order of Matthew Carr, deceased, who was a citizen of the state of Louisiana, and were assets of his estate, and that the plaintiff acquired title thereto through a judicial sale made by the sheriff of the parish of Concordia on the 22d day of May, 1868, under authority of an order of the probate court of said parish having the administration of said estate; that plaintiff at the date of his said purchase and at the date of filing his original petition herein, on the 2d day of November, 1877, was a citizen of the state of Missouri, and that the defendant was a citizen of the state of Louisiana. Under the state of facts the only question at issue upon the trial of said exception was whether the case, for the purpose of jurisdiction, comes within the following restriction imposed by § 1 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1875; 'Nor shall any circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit founded on contract in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover thereon if no assignment had been made, except in cases of promissory notes, negotiable by the law merchant, and bills of exchange.' And the court, for the reasons set forth in the written opinion hereto annexed and made part hereof, has this day maintained the defendant's exception to the jurisdiction of this court, and dismissed plaintiff's petition, with leave to amend, if so advised, and without prejudice, and now grants this certificate for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to obtain a review by the Supreme Court of said jurisdictional question under the 5th section of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1891.'

Messrs. J. D. Rouse and Wm. Grant for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Edgar H. Farrar, Benjamin F. Jonas, Ernest B. Kruttschnitt, and Henry L. Lazarus for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court: 

Notes
Uncategorized United States Supreme Court decision