
    James M’Donald, Appellant, v. Freeman Smalley, and Others, (in all forty.)
    Where the record from' the Cburt below, contained the whole proceedings in the case, and exhibited all the matters'either party required for a final • disposition of the case, and the counsel for both the appellant and the ap-pellees, were willing to submit, upon argument, the whole case to the final decision of the Court.; but it appeared that the-Circuit Court of Ohio had not decided any question,- but that which had- been raised upon the jurisdiction of the Court, the counsel were directed by this Court to argue the point of jurisdiction only. {621 }
    It cannot be alleged, that a citizen of one state, having title to lands in another state, is disabled from suing for thos,e lands in the Courts of the United States, by the fact that he derives his title from a citizen of the state ■ in which the lands lie. {628}
    M., a citizen of Ohio, apprehensive his title to lands in that state could not be maintained in the state Court, and being indebted to the plaintiff, a citizen of, Alabama, to the amount'of $1100, offered to sell and convey to him the land, in payment of the debt, stating' in the.letter by which the offer was made, that the .title would most probably .be maintained in the Courts of the United States, but would fail in the Courts of the state. The . property was1 estimated at more than the debt, but in consequence of the difficulties attending the title, he was Willing to .convey it for the debt, which was done. The plairitiff in error, after the land was conveyed to him, gave .his bond to make a'quit claim title-to the land, on condition of receiving $1000.; held that the title acquired by the purchaser, gave jurisdiction to the Courts of the United States. {623}
    The motives which induced M. to make the contract for the purchase of ' the'land, can have no influence on its validity. A Court cannot enter into the consideration of those motives, when deciding on its jurisdiction. {624} , ■ .
    In a contract between a mortgagor and mortgagee, beihg citizens of different states, it cannot be doubted, that an ejectment, orbillto'foreclose, may be ■brought in a Court of the United Statesj by the mortgagee residing in a different state. {624}
    The rules which govern the practice of the Circuit Courts in Chancery, have • been prescribed by this Courtand ought to be observe'd; {625}
    THIS was an -appeal, from the Circuit Court of Ohio, by the .¡complainant in that Court, on a bib filed in the Cháncery side.of the Court; the object of which was, through the aid of that Court,'tp ofitain a conveyance of á tract of land, situated in the state of Ohio.
    The complainant, a citizen óf th'e átate of Alabama,’ derived title under a conveyance- from Duncan- M’Arthur, a citizen ■of Ohio; and the only point decided in the Circuit Court, was upon the question of jurisdiction. The Circuit Court dismissed,the bill, "for-Want of jurisdiction; and the .complainant appealed to this Court."
    
      Before, the argument commenced, the counsel for both parties. asked instructions of. the Court qpon ■ the question, whether, as the record contained the» whole of the proceedings in the'cause, and exhibited all the matters either party required for .a iifial disposition of the case, in this Court, upon all the-points' in controversy, this' Court would permit the argument to go-to the'whole case, so that a decree could be, given here upon the whole case'; or, whether, an. opinion upon the jurisdiction-only.having been given in''the Circuit Court, the argument should’be confined to that question.. The Court having -advised upon the subject', directed the counsel to. argue -the'point of, jurisdiction only, as no other, than that had been . decided' in the Court from which the "appeáb had been taken.
    In the Circuit Court of Ohio, the defendant suggested, that' M’Donald, the complainant in the bill, was not a -citizen- of Ohio; and according to a ¡practice in the.Courts of the state >of Ohio, under the .'authority of a. law', of that state, interro-' gatoriés were exhibited to the complainant, to which answers were given. This-law was'passed, subsequent to the Act of -Congress; establishing the judiciary system, and was admitted not to. be authority in the Courts of the United States. The facts, stated', by the cojuplainánt, in answer to those interrogatories, with' other testimony, furnished the ground taken against-the-jurisdiction, of the Court.
    On the 14th November 1823, Duncan M’Arthur conveyed,by .deed of indenture, the' land in controversy, to the complainant; the consideration expressed in the deed being-1100 dollars, the amount of a debt he owed to the complainant, for land purchased' from him. In reply to the interrogatory “•whether, he was thé..benéficial owner,' or was prosecuting the suit for the benefit'qf some resident in-Ohio; and whether .he is the real prosecutor of the suit, and was-so at its Comtnence-rtienf, or whether his name .-was' used for the benefit of a citizen of the state, of Ohio?,” the complainant answered, by: referring .to a letter from’Duncan M’Arthur to him, dated July 18th 1823. In that' letter, Duncan M’Arthur offer's to ' give ..the land in question, 1266 acres, alleged to be'worth five dollars per acre, tp pay a,debt of 1100 dollars; suggests that, the title is goody if prosecuted in the Federal -CoUrt; “but state Judges do not understand land ■ causes, and a claimant in the military district, might as well toss up heads, and tails, as sue in.a state■ Court.” It. contains also this suggestion; “-should you- accept this offer, and not wi'sh to,’prosecute the claim yourself, you can make something handsome, I havé no doubt, by' selling it to some of your neighboursand it con- . eludes with offering *f any assistance in -my power, shotild a suit be" brought for recovery of the laud in the Circuit Court.”
    He also stated, in his answer, that the deed under which ' he claimed, was executed for the purpose"of giving jurisdiction to the Court of the United States; - because' he believed that Court safer than any Qther in the.state of Ohio; thkt the' contract was made by letter, of which he had not retained a, copy;"and, that at the time the deed was “written,” there-whs no special ..agreement between him and M’Arthur,'but, perhaps, propositions fay letter. “I give my bonds to a third party for a quit claim title to said lands, on condition of their paying me 1100 dollars. ”
    The complainant insisted, that the deed from M’Arthur, conveys to M’Donald such a title as will enable him to.sustain the suit id a Federal Court; — that it is sufficient, if. he has any interest; — .that by accepting the deed, M’Donald has been, paid his debt, and though he may be only mortgagee, he may sue in this Court.
    The-respondents contended,'that the answer of M’Donald, shows -that he is' not' the owner of the land; and, his manner bf answering, leaves no doubt, but. that the- owner is a citizen of Ohio, and that the jurisdiction of the Court, therefore, cannot be .maintained.
    Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Dodridge, for the cornplainant.^-
    It iseyidejit, .that' the complainant-held the land, and.it was - not material hoV be held it. He'had. an interest in the land, - and- was' a citizen of Alabama: It is-not necessary that a party to- sue,in.the:Cou.rts of the .United States, shall'be. the sole1 owner, if he isbeneficial-owner.of a-part of the land;if he has any interest in .the, lands:, "it -is Sufficient. Thé class of cases decided in .'the Circuit Court of .Pennsylvania, by Mr. Justice Washington,, ha's established the principle. Robert Brown’s lessee- vs. Brówn, 1 'Wash:,.Rep. 429. Here- the interest in -thé. land is-certainly'to the extent of the debt; and the Court'will Sustain the jurisdiction, although, the' ihterest may not he commensurate .with the whole of the land. ,, It is important and necessary, and it was.-in the .view of the-framers of the Constitution of the United Stales, that their tribunals should be opened to those'whom prejudice, or unjust, and unconstitutional legislation, in' the states, might prevent -from maintaining their-, rights in the. Courts of the states, and the Courts of the United States. should- favour such appeals. Titles may, and áre sometimé's bad in.a state, before a state Court, which are perfect under1 the decisions of th’e.national Courts. Huidekoper’s lessee vs. Douglas, 1 Circuit Court Rep. 258. Mr. Dodridge also referred to cases,-similar in principle, decided in the Court's of Virginia.
    
      Mr. Hammond, for the appellees.—
    The inference-to be drawn from the .'decisions of the Courts of .Pennsylvania, is different from that which the complainant's counsel deduces. The interference-of the'Courts of the United States in relation to titles to lands, so - as to regulate tl)em differently frofn' the laws of the' state, ■ is. to be deprecated; such property should be held- according to the decisions of the Courts of the' state.
    The- complainant has nothing but a. mortgage interest in thé land, and such an interest cannot give jurisdiction to the Courts of the-United States. ■ .
    The engagement to gitse a quit claim deed, coupled with the absen,ce'of proof to show that the deed to be made w.as to-another person than -M’Arthur, authorises thé assertion that the whole arrangement was one intended only to aid M’Arthur in' bringing his title before a Court of the-United .States; and such a- proceeding-cannot be sustained.
   Mr. Chief Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.—

This suit was instituted in the Circuit Court ojf the.United States for the seventh- Circuit, and district' of Ohio, to obtain a conveyance of a tract of land,' lying in' what is termed “ the military. district;'” ■ claimed by the complainant under a patent, younger than, that under which it is held by the • defendants. The complainant is a- citizen of Alabama; and. claims the land under a conveyance from Duncan M’Arthur, who is a citizen of Ohio. The defendants. objected to the, jurisdiction of the Court; and after Fearing the parties upon this point, the. Court dismissed the bill, ■ being of. opinion that its jurisdiction'could not be sustained. From this decree, the complainant has appealed, and the cause is-now before this Court on the question of jurisdiction.

The bill -states, the complainant to be- a citizen and resident of the state'of Alabama, and the defendants to be citizens and residents of the state- of Ohio. It hás not been' alleged and certainly cannot be alleged, that a citizen of one state, having title to lands in another, is disabled from suing for those lands in the' Courts of the: United States, by-the fact, that he derives-his ti-. tie from a citizen of .the state in which the lands lie’: consequently, the single inquiry must be, whether the conveyance from M’Arthur to M’Donald was real or fictitious ?

The transaction, as laid before the"Court, appears to be this; M’Arthur was apprehensive that his title could not “be sustained ini .the Courts of the state, in. which alone he could sue;'and being indebted tp M’Donald in the sum-of 81100, offered to sell and convey to him the land in controversy, in payment of this debt. The .letter in which thijs offer was made, expresses the opinion, that his title was good, and would most probably; be ■established in' the Courts-of the United States, but would fail in the Courts of the- state. He estimates the property as-being worth much'more than the sum he- is willing to take for it, but in consequence of the difficulties attending the title, he is willing to convey itin satisfaction of the-debt. fie suggests, that if M’Donald should be' disinclined to engage in the controversy himself, he might make an advantageous, sale" to some-of his neighbours, who might be-disposed , to emigrate to Ohio; and' offers to render any service in his power to the proprietor of .the land, in the prosecution of-the claim’in the Courts of the - United States.

The contract was. concluded by a letter, written in answer to that which has béen statedj of which-the, said M’Donáld retained no cop^,. There was no special agreementbetween the plain-tiff and M’.Arthur' when the 'deed was written, but perhaps some proposition by letter, fie.gave his bond to a third party for making a quit claim title to the land, on- condition of receiving from him'eievén hundred dollars.

This.-testimony, , which is all that,was laid'before the, Court, ■ shows, we think," a sale and conveyance to-thé plaintiff, which was binding on both parties. ' M’Donald couild not have maintained an action for his debt, nór M’Arthur a suit for his land. His title to it was extinguished, and the Consideration' was received. ' The mptiyes-which induced him' to make the contract,Whether justifiable ór censurable,'can have no influence on-its-validity. They were- such as had sufficient influence with him-sélf, and he' had a right to act upon them.- A . Court cannot enter into them, when' deciding, oh its jurisdiction! The'- con- . veyance appéars to be -a real -transaction,. and -the real as' well as nominal, parties'.to the suit,'are, citizens'of different states. ■- '.

The only part- of the testimony which can-inspire-doubt, re- . .specting its being; an absolute, sále," is the admission that the plaintiff gave^ his bond to a\third party for a quit claim title to the fend, on paying him gllOO.' We áre'not informed who this third'party was, nor 'do we suppose it to'-be material. The |ti(le of M*Arthur-.was vested in the plaintiff, and did. not-pass out of him by this bond.- A' suspicion may exist, that.it was Sor -M’Arthur. The Court canndt act-upon-this suspicion, ■

But -suppose' the fac,t to be avowed,- what influence Could it have upion the. jurisdiction of the Court? It-would-convert the .conveyance, which -on itá face appears .to' be. absolute,, into a mortgage.. But this.-would not.affect the-qu^stion. In a contest 'between the mortgagor tfnd mortgagee, being citizens of different States, it cannot be doubted that an ejectment, or a bill to foreclose, may be brought by the mortgagee, residing in a different state, in a Court of the United States. Why .then may he not sustain a suit in the same Court, against'any other person being a citizen of the same state with the mortgagor. We can perceive ho reason why he should not. The case depends, we think, on the question, whether the transaction between M’Arthur and M’Donald was real or fictitious; 'and we perceive no reason to doubt its reality, whether the deed be considered as absolute or as a mortgage.

A question has been made, whether the Circuit Courtought to- have noticed the testimony on the conveyance under which the plaintiff claims, because it was brought irregularly before them.

By a- law of the state, interrogatories may be propounded, by the defendant in his answer, which the plaintiff is compelled to answer as if they had been propounded in a cross bill.

Although this point has become unimportant in this cause, the Court thinks it proper to say, that the rules Which govern the practice of the Circuit Courts in Chancery, have been prescribed by this Court, and ought to be observed.

We think, there is error in the decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the complainar ’s bill, and that the same ought to be reversed, and the .cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

This case came on, &c; and was- argued on the point of ju-bn consideration whereof, This Court is of opinion, that there is error' in the decree of the said Circuit Court dismissing the complainant’s bill. It is therefore decreed, and ordered by. this Court, that the decree of the said Circuit Court in this causé be and'the same is hereby reversed and annulled. And it is further orderedj that the cause be remanded to the said Circuit 'Court.for further- proceedings to be had therein* according to law and justice.  