2 FEDERAL REPORTER-
"the court has no jurisdiction of the matter thereof." On the argu-
ment of the demurrer, counsel for the defendant cited and relied on
the clause of section 1 of the judiciary act of 1875 (18 St. 470) which
reads: · . , ¤· — —
"N or shall any circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit founded
l 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 ex-
change." - _
The exposition of this clause, by counsel for the defendant, 1S to
theéeifectthat, as the assignor could not have maintained asuit on
the contract in question to enforce the payment of a sum less than
$500, therefore the plaintiff cannot as assignee thereof. And it must
be admitted that the proposition is not without plausibility. But, in
construing this restriction on the assignee’s right to sue, reference
must be had to the manifest aim and object of the provision. The
` jurisdiction of this court, so far as the same depends on the amount in
controversy, is prescribed by an earlier clause in the same section,
which in effect limits such jurisdiction to cases where "the matter in
dispute" exceeds the sum or value of $500. But the jurisdiction of
the court may also depend on the citizenship of the parties to the
V suit, and the provision in question is intended to prevent a party to
_ a nonmegotiable contract, who cannot, for want of such citizenship,
sue his debtor thereon in the national courts, from conferring such
right upon a citizen of another state by an assignment of his demand
to him. And, so far as this provision is concerned, it matters not
what is. the sum or value of "the matter in dispute."
The assignor of the contract upon which the third cause of action
is founded appears to be a citizen of California. He might, therefore,
‘ so far as the question of citizenship is concerned, have prosecuted a
4 suit on such contract in this court, and therefore his assignee may
do so. Of course, no one can maintain a suit in this court on this
demand alone. The value of it is not sufficient to give the court
jurisdiction. But the plaintiff is also the owner of other demands
against the defendant,--one in his own right and the other as assignee.
As authorized by the Code, (section 91,) he has unitedthese several
demands or causes of action in the complaint in this action. And
the only other question in the case is, what is the sum or value of
?‘the matter in dispute" in this action? In considering this ques-
tion, each item or demand in the complaint is not to be taken by
itself, as if it were the subject of a separate action, but the sum of
these items,-the aggregate value of the three distinct demands eon·
tained in the complaint, which constitute the subject of the action,
and the amount sought to be recovered by it. The sum which a
plaintiff seeks to recover in an action for money is the measure of
the·value Of`“tl1G matter in dispute" therein between himself and
the defendant. The right of the plaintiff to recover this sum is to be