
    William S. Buckner, a Citizen of New York vs. Finley and Van Lear, Citizens of the State of Maryland.
    Bills of exchange drawn in one -state of tne union, on personsliving in another ■ stale, partake of the'character of foreign bills, and ought to be so treated in the courts-of the United Stated
    jFNor all-national purposes embraced by the federa] constitution, the states and the citjteens thereof are one,runited under, the same, sovereign authority,- and governed by tbe'sanje laws, -in all other respects, the states.-gre necessarily foreign and independeht.of each other. ■ [590]
    THIS case came before the Court from the circuit court of the United States for the Maryland district* The action was instituted in the circuit court* on a bill of exchange, . drawn on the 16th of March. 181,9,. by the defendants, at -Baltimore, on Stephen De ver at New Orleans, in favour of Rose-well L. Colt or order, of Baltimore; and by him indorsed,, for value received,totheplaintiff, adtizen ofNew York. -
    A judgment was confessed by the defendants for $2,100, subject to the opinion of the, court, .upon, á case stated} and which presented the question, whether the circuit court had jurisdiction in the case.
    The defendants objected to the jurisdiction^ on the ground that “the bill was an inland, and not a foreign bill of exchange; and therefore, the defendants, and the drawee Rose-well L. Colt, being citizens of. Maryland, although the bill Was regularly in the bands of the plaintiff, as indorsee, who is ¿ citizen of a different state,, the circuit court had no cognizance of the claim-
    The. provision of the act of congress upon, which the. question arises, is in the 11th-section of the “ act to establish the judicial powers of the courts of the United States,” passed September 24th, 1789. The words of the act are, noushall any district or circuit court have cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note, or other chose in action, in favour of an assignee ; unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court, to recover the. said contents, it no assignment had been made; except in cases of foreign bills of exchange
    
    
      The judges of the circuit court divided in opinion •efn the question of jurisdiction, and ordered the record to be certified-. to this Court.
    The case was argued by Mr Hoffman, for the defendants* no counsel appealing for the plaintiff.
    He contended, l. That in. all cases of promissory notes, inland bills of exchange, and other chos.es in action, an as-signee, or an indorsee, is incompetent to. sue the maker in the courts.ofthe United States,.except where súch.suit might have been there, prosecuted, had there been no assignment or indorsement; and-that as the payee of this bill of exchange, when calling on the makers, must have resorted to the,state tribunals, the indorsee must be referred to the Same tribunals.
    2.. That this-being a bill of exchange drawn within this union, and payable there, viz. between citizens of sister sta'tes, cannot be regarded as a foreign bill, within the sound interpretation of the 11th section of the¡judiciary act of 1789; but that it is an inland bill, which, like promissory notes, remains forever subject to state jurisdiction, though transferred to citizens of another state.
    3. That congress did not design, by the exception contained in that section, to. legislate in reference to citizens of the different states of this union., or to confer on the circuit courts a jurisdiction in regard to them, so as to comprehend in. their favour as “foreign bills," those that should be drawn between citizens of sister states.
    
    4. That congress used this expression in its popular sense, which, indeed, is the only one in which that body could have thus legislated ; and that bills foreign to the union, viz. bills drawn in or on coúntries alien to the'sovereignty of the United States, were the only foreign bills that either the policy, or the obvious meaning of the exception, embraces.
    5. That foreign countries, and foreign bills, are correlative expressions; whereas, no sister state is foreign to the union, nor is any sister state truly foreign to any other state of the union. Congress, therefore, when legislating in reference to jurisdiction, must have had that union and foreign stales 
      in its view.; and designed to legislate under this exception only in reference to' bills drawn in.or on the union, but in or on any country other than one of the states of this unión; they being in regard to the union itself one, arid not foreign; and also, in regard Ho each other, not foreign either in a •popular or strictly1 legal sense.
    6. That the exception in regaidto/orngw bills was, perhaps. founded on the policy of extending to aliens, (who were most likely to become the holders 6f. bills drawn here on foreign countries, or drawn in forejgn countries on this) the benefit of the national tribunalsand was not designed to embrace citizens of different states, or to distinguish such bills from promissory notes,: which remain with the state courts, though in the hands of t itizens of- different states. Such citizens, though bona-fide indorsees, and for full value, being incompetent to sue makers in the fe^erai courts, though they are. competent to sue their own indorsers, because every indorsenier t is a new and independent contract, as between indorser and indorsee.
    7. That the legal, no less than the popular understanding, has classed such- bills under- the head of inland; and that' being the norma Igquendi renders it. highly probable that congress had no other bills in view,'than such as are drawn in or on. countries wholly foreign .to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of this union.
    8. That'although most of the-legislatures of the different states have allowed damages bn the .protest of bills drawn on sister states; yet nearly, without.exception, the word “inr land” has bee.n applied to such bills, and the word “ foreign” tó'íhose drawn in of on other countries.
    Forthe popular and legal sense of the expression “ inland bills,” 4 Griffith's Law Register, 627; 699. 697. 799. 943.' 1006.1007, 1067.1140.
    9. The question is res. nova in this Court, but has been the subject of judicial discussion in three instances, viz. in Millar us. Hackley, 5 Johns. Rep. 375; and hS. C. Const. Rep. 100; and in-Lonsdale us. Brown, 1821, before Mr Justice Washington(a).
    
      Mr Hoffman stated that he- was not informed, whether in t'his last case the point turned on the question jurisdiction, or only on the necessity of protest, as was thé ease in two other cases. The case in New York holds such bills to be' inland.- But' had the decisions in-the state courts been uniformly otherwise, it is difficult to conceive how the states are to be regarded as foreign to each other in the national tribunals. A bill may well.be foreign in the state courts, and inland in the federal courts; and the-constitutionality of the very exception contained in the 11th section of the judiciary act, if designed to embrace within its jurisdiction bills between state and state, seems to have been doubted by Mr Justice Story in 1 Mason, %51.' But if this point be wáived, the -only inquiry is as to. the probable intention of congress; which,, the plaintiff contends, wás to embraee only such bills as are drawn between coúntries actually foreign to each other. Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, Yol. III. p.ir3, inclines to the, opinion that'bills between the states of the' union are foreign in all courts; but the point of protest appears to- have mainly occupied the mind o.f the learned writer; and the question of juri Hction, arising from .the. sound construction of the act of congress, does not specially claim his attention.-
   Mr Justice Washington

. .delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action of assumpsit founded on a bill of exchange drawn at Baltimore, in the state of Maryland, upon Stephen Dever át New Orleans, in favour of R. L. Colt, a citizen of Maryland,, who indorsed the same to the plaintiff, a citizen of New; York. The action was brought in the circuit court of the United States-for the district of Maryland ; and upon a case, agreed, stating the above facts, the judges of that court were divided in opinion, whether they' could, entertain jurisdiction, of the cause upon the ground insisted Upon by the defendants’ counsel, that the bill was to be. considered as inland. The difficulty which occasioned the adjournment of the cause to this Court, is produced by the llth'section of the judiciary act of 1789, which declares, that no district or circuit court shall have “ cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note, or other chose in action in favour of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents, if no assignment had been made, except in cases offoreign bills of exchange.”

The only question is, whether the bill on which the suit is founded, is to be considered a foreign bill of exchange.1?

It is .to be regretted that so-little-aid in' determining this question is to be obtained from decided cases, either in England, or in the United States.

Sir William Blaekstone, in his commentaries, distinguishes foreigu from inland bills, by defining the former as bills drawn by a merchant residing abroad upen his correspondent in England, or vice versa; and the latter as those drawn by one person on another, when both drawer and drawee reside within the same kingdom. Chitty, p. 16, and the other writers on bHls of exchange are to the same effect; and all of them agree, that until the statutes of 8 and 9 W. IJ1. chi 17, and 3 and 4 Anne, ch. 9, which placed these two kinds ,of bills- upon the same -footing, and subjected inland bills to the'same , law and custom of merchants which governed foreign bills; the latter were much more regarded in the eye-of the law than the former, as being thought of more public concern in-the advancement of trade and commerce.

Applying this definition to the political character of the several states of this union in relation to each other, we are all clearly of opinion, that bills drawn in one of these states, upon persons living in any other of them, partake of the character of foreign bills, and ought so to be treated. For all national purposes embraced by the federal constitution, the states and the citizens, thereof are one, united under the same sovereign authority, and governed by the same laws. In all other respects, the states are necessarily foreign to, and independent of each other. Their constitutions and forms of government being, although republican, altogether different, as áre their laws and .institutions. This sentiment was expressed, with great force, by the president of the court of appeals of.Yirginia, in the case of Warder vs. Arrell, 2 Wash. 298; where He states, that in cases of contracts, the laws, of a, foreign country, where the contract was made, must govern ^ and then adds as follows — “ The same, principle applies, though with no greater iorep, to the different states of America; for though they form a confederated government, yet the several states retain their individual'sove-reignties, and; with respect to their municipal' regulations; are to each other foreign.”

This character of the laws of one state in relation to the others, is strongly exemplified in the particular. subject under consideration; whjch is governed, a» to the necessity of protest and rate of damages, by different rules in the different states. In none of these laws however,_so far as we can discover from Griffith’s Law Register, to which wé were referred by the counsel, except those of Virginia, are bills, drawn in one state upon another, designated, as inland ; although the damages.allowed upon protested bills of that description, are generally, and with great propriety, lower than upon bills . drawn upon a country foreign to the United States; since the disappointment and injury to the holder must always begreater in the latter, than, in the former case( It is for the same reason, no doubt, that, by the laws of most of the states, bills drawn in and.upon the same state, and.protested, are either exempt from damages, altogether, or-the rate is lower upon them,. than upon, bills drawn oh some other of . the states.

The only case, which was cited at the bar, of which.has come to our knowledge, to show that a bill drawn in one state upon a person in any other of the states, is an inland, bill, is that of Miller vs. Hackley, 5 Johns. Rep. 375. Alluding to this case, in the third volume of his Commentaries, p. 63, in a note, Chancellor'Kent remarks very truly, that the opinion was not given on the point on which the decision, rested ;, and he adds, that it was rather the opinion of Mr Justice Van Ness than that of the court. It is not unlikely, besides, that that opinion was, in no small degree, influenced by what is said by Judge Tucker in a note to 2 Black. Com. 467; which was múch relied upo.n by one of the counsel in the .argument, where the author would appear to define an inland bill, as being one drawn by a person residing in one state on another within the United States. He is so understood by Chancellor Kent, in the passage .which' has been, referred to: but this is undoubtedly by a mistake, as the note manifestly refers-, to the laws of .Virginia'; and by an act of that state, passed on the 28th of December 1795, it is expressly declared,, that all bills of exchange drawn by any person residing in that state, bn a person in' the United States, shall be considered in all cases as inland bills. TJhe case of Miller vs, Hackley, therefore, can hardly be considered as an authority for the position which it was inttnded t'O. maintain. We think it cannot be so considered by the courts of New York, since the principle supposed to .be decided in that case, would seem to be. directly at variance with the uniform decisions of the same courts uporythe subject of judgments rendered in the'tribunals of the sster states.' In the case of Hitchcock vs. Aicken, 1 Caines, 460, all the judges seem to have treated those judgments as foreign in the- :Courts of New York; and the only point of difference between them grew out of the construction of the 1st section of the 4th article of ths constitution of the United States, and the act of congress of the' 26th of May 1790, ch. 38,' respecting, the effect of those judgments, and the credit to be given to them in the courts of the sister states.

It would seem-from a nóte to the case of Bartlett vs. Knight, 4 Mass. Rep. 430, where a collection of state decisions on the same subject is given; that these judgment's had generally, if not universally, been-considered as foreign- by the courts of many of the states. . If this be so, it is difficult 'to understand upon what principle bills of exchange drawn in one-; state Upon another state can be considered as inland; unless in a. state where, they are declared to be such by a statute of that state.

It has not been our good fortune to see ¡the case of Duncan vs. Course, 1 South Carolina Constitutional Reports, 100 ; but -the note above referred to in. 3 Rent’s Com, informs us, that it decides that bills of this description are- to be considered in the ligKtof foreign bills; and the learned commentator concludes, upon the whole, and principally,upon the ground of the decision just quoted; that the-weight of American authority.is on that side;

.. Thaf.it is .so, .in respect to the necessityof protesting bills of-that description;'was not'vety strenuously controverted . by the eóun?el;.for the defendant. But he insists, that under á-jüst ■construction of the 11th section of the judiciary act, ebnéeíning the jurisdiction of th,e federahcourts,'.these bills . ought to. be Considered and treated as inland. The argument is, that the mischief intended to he remedie&bytbe provisions in. the latter, part of that section', by the assign- . ment is,' .promissory notes and..either chosea in .action,' is the same in relatibn ito bills of exchange of the character under consideration...

. We are of a different opinion. The policy which probably dictated this provision in the above1 section, was,to. prevent frauds upon. the jurisdiction of those courts by pretended assignments of bonds, notes, and bills, of. exchange strictly, inland; and as;these evidences of. debt generally concern the interna) negotiations of the inhabitants of the same state, and would, seldom find their way fairly into the . hands of .person^ residing in another state; the prohibition as.to them would'.impose, a very trifling restriction, if any, upon the commercial intercourse of. the different states with each other* Itis quite otherwise as to bills drawn in one state upon another.. They answer all the purposes of remittances, and of cornipercial. facilities, equally with bills drawn upon other, countries, or vice versa;. and jf a choice of jurisdictions be, important to the credit of bills of the latter class, which it undoubtedly is, it must be equálly.so tó that of the former.

,Nor does the...reason .for restraining the transfer of other. cKósés in action, apply to bills' of exchange of this description; wíiich, from their commercial character, might be expected to pass' fairly into, the hands of persons residing in the different states of the union.. We conclude upon the whofe, that in ño point of view ought jtheytp be considered other vise, than as foreign bills.

This cause came, on to be heard, on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Maryland, and on-the questions and points on-which the judges of the said circuit court were opposed in opinion, and which were certified to-this Court for its opinion, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof it is; the opinion of this Court that the bill of exchange on which this action is'brought, ought tobe considered, as a foreign bill within the meaning of the 11th sectioh of the judiciary act ,of the 24th of September 1787, and that the said circuit court has jurisdiction of this cause; whereupon it is con-sidérad, ordered and adjudged by this Gourt, that it be. certified to. the said circuit Court for the district of Maryland, that the bill'of exchange on which; this action 'is brought, ought to be considered .as a foreign bill, within the meaning of the llth.sectiori of- the judiciary act Of the 24th of September 1787: and that that court, has jurisdiction of the cause. 
      
       Vol. II. 467.
     
      
      
         Bayley, Syd.
      
     
      
      .The opinión of Mr Justice Washington, in the case of Lonsdale vs. Brown, in which the,same point was rilled in the circuit' court of the United-States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, will bej. found in the appendix, No. II..
     