FITTON v. PHCENIX Asses. 00. 3
contested and determined thereby, according to the established mode
of procedure; and, so long as it exceeds $500 in amount, it is im-
material how or whence the plaintiff became the owner of the several
items that may constitute or enter into this sum or demand. Indeed,
cases may arise in which the assignee of a demand may maintain an
action thereon in this court, so far as the value of "the matter in dis-
pute" is concerned, when the assignor could not. For instance, where
the demand bears interest, the sum due thereon at the time of the
assignment may be less than $500; but when suit is brought on it by
the assignee, the value of it may exceed $500. Of course, a collusive
or pretended assignment of an item in the plaintiffs demand may be
set up as a defense to a recovery thereon by the pseudo assignee.
But when the transaction is bona yide, and the legal title is trans-
ferred to the assignee, he may maintain an action thereon in this
court without reference to its value, provided that the whole sum
sought to be recovered therein exceeds $500, and the citizenship of
the assignor and defendant was such at the time of the assignment
that a suit might have been maintained between them herein. See
Stanley v. Board of Sup’rs, 15 Fan. Bur. 483; Judson v. Macon Oo.
2 Dill. 213.
The demurrer is overruled. ‘
Frrrou and Wife v. Pucnmx Assoa. Co. and others.
(Oircuit Court, D. Vermont. February 10, 1885.)
Equrrv Piuorrcn-Rarmnnrno Issues or Fscr ro JUmr—Rmv. Sr. § 648.
The United States circuit court may send issues of fact, properly raised by was
pleadings in an equity case, to a. jury for trial.
In Equity.
James L. Martin, for defendants.
Martin H. Goddard, for orators.
WHEELER, J. This cause has been heard before on demurrer to
the bill, which was overruled as to the defendants now before the
court, with leave to answer over. Fitton v. Fire Ins. Ass’n, 20 Fun.
REP. 766. The defendants have answered that the agreement to bind
insurance was procured by fraudulent representations of the orators
as to the situation of the property, as to exposure to and precautions
against loss from fire; that the loss occurred through want of the pre-
cautions represented to be employed, and the wrongful, willful, and
negligent acts of the orators. Issues of fact are raised by the traverse
of the answers, and the defendants now move that these issues be sent
to a jury. The motion is opposed upon the ground that by the stat-
utes of the United States the power to send issues of fact to a jury is