Overview
Case summary
Skinner v. Barr involved a suit by Robert W. Skinner, a New Jersey citizen, against George W. Barr, a Pennsylvania citizen, on promissory notes. The notes were made by George W. Price (PA) payable to Catharine J. Knapp (PA), indorsed by Barr (PA), and then transferred by Knapp to Skinner. At trial, the court directed a verdict for Skinner but reserved the question of jurisdiction. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing the federal court lacked jurisdiction under the Act of August 13, 1888. The court held that under the statute, federal courts lack jurisdiction over suits by assignees on promissory notes unless the assignor could have maintained the suit in federal court. Since Knapp (the assignor) and Barr were both Pennsylvania citizens, Knapp could not have sued in federal court, and therefore Skinner (the assignee) could not either. The court interpreted the statute to deny jurisdiction to assignees regardless of whether the note was payable to bearer, with the bearer clause only limiting suits by subsequent holders. Judgment was entered for the defendant.
Abstract
A plaintiff assignee sued on promissory notes indorsed by the defendant in federal court based on diversity of citizenship. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff but reserved jurisdiction, ultimately granting judgment for the defendant because the assignor and defendant were citizens of the same state, preventing the assignor from suing in federal court under the relevant statute. The statute was interpreted to deny jurisdiction to assignees unless the assignor could have maintained the suit, regardless of the note's bearer status.
Opinion of the court
opinionDALLAM, Circuit Judge
- Act of August 13, 1888 denies federal jurisdiction for suits by assignees on promissory notes unless assignor could have sued in federal court
- The 'payable to bearer' clause only limits 'any subsequent holder' and does not affect the general rule for assignees
- Following Parker v. Ormsby interpretation that the 1888 act restores 1789 act provisions with additional restrictions
Jurisdiction
challenged- Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey
- Defendant is a citizen of Pennsylvania
- Notes were made by a Pennsylvania citizen, payable to a Pennsylvania citizen, and indorsed by a Pennsylvania citizen
Procedural posture
- Jurisdiction under Act of August 13, 1888
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
de novo
Court lacks jurisdiction under Act of August 13, 1888 because the assignor (Knapp) could not have sued in federal court due to lack of diverse citizenship with defendant
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- Trial court's assertion of jurisdiction over the case — procedural · error foundJurisdictional error is fundamental and not subject to harmless error analysis · not harmless
Statutory interpretation
1Standards of review
- Statutory interpretation of Act of August 13, 1888 — de novo Construction of federal statute is a question of law reviewed de novo
Timeline
Trial before Circuit Judge Dallas; plaintiff presented notes as evidence; defendant moved for nonsuit on jurisdictional grounds; motion overruled; defendant attempted to show defense but offer rejected; court directed verdict for plaintiff subject to reserved jurisdiction question
Outcome: Verdict directed for plaintiff subject to jurisdiction question
Established factual record and preserved jurisdictional issue for decision
Court granted defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict, holding it lacked jurisdiction under Act of August 13, 1888
Outcome: Judgment for defendant
Final disposition based on statutory interpretation of jurisdictional statute
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
5 facts- Promissory notes made by George W. Price (PA citizen) payable to Catharine J. Knapp (PA citizen)
- Notes indorsed by George W. Barr (PA citizen)
- Notes transferred by indorsement from Knapp to Robert W. Skinner (NJ citizen)
- Skinner sued Barr as remote indorser
- Defendant claimed lack of federal jurisdiction
Procedural history
5 steps- Trial held before Circuit Judge Dallas
- Defendant moved for nonsuit on jurisdictional grounds - overruled
- Defendant attempted to show defense against original parties but failed due to lack of notice to plaintiff
- Court directed verdict for plaintiff subject to reserved jurisdiction question
- Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding verdict based on jurisdiction
Evidence in the record
- Plaintiff's evidence of the notes
- Defendant's attempted evidence of defense against original parties (rejected)
- Promissory notes made by George W. Price payable to Catharine J. Knapp, indorsed by George W. Barr
Jury
Authorities
Cited authorities (3)
Statutes
- Act of August 13, 1888 (25 Stat. 434)
- Act of 1789
- Act of March 3, 1875
Standards & doctrines
- De novo review of statutory interpretation
- Jurisdictional limitations for assigned claims
Legal principles applied
- Assignees cannot sue in federal court on promissory notes unless assignor could have maintained the suit