Syllabus. Section 706 of the Revised Statutes and section 847 of the Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia, which provided for the allowance of appeals and writs of error by the justices of this court under special circumstances, are no longer in force. Act of February 25, 1879, c. 99, 20 Stat. 320, c. 99; Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U. S. 398; Dennison v. Alexander, 103 U. S. 522; Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 443, c. 355; Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82, 87. The sum in dispute on this record, exclusive of costs, is more than one thousand and less than five thousand dollars. It is well settled that our appellate jurisdiction, when dependent upon the sum or value really in dispute between the parties, is to be tested without regard to the collateral effect of the judg ment in another suit between the same or other parties. It is the direct effect of the judgment that can alone be considered. New England Mortgage Co. v. Gay, 145 U. S. 123; Washington and Georgetown Railroad Co. v. District of Columbia, 146 U. S. 227. This case does not come within either of the sections of the act of March 3, 1885, regulating appeals and writs of error from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and the writ of error must, therefore, be Dismissed. HOLMES v. GOLDSMITH. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON. No. 93. Argued December 14, 15, 1892. - Decided January 9, 1893. The maker of a promissory note signed it entirely for the benefit of the payee, who was really the party for whose use it was made. The maker and the payee were citizens of the same State. A citizen of another State discounted the note, and paid full consideration for it to the payee, who endorsed it to him. The note not being paid at maturity, the endorsee, who had not parted with it, brought suit upon it against the maker in the Circuit Court of the United States. Held, that the court had jurisdiction, notwithstanding the provision in the act of August 13, Statement of the Case. 1888, 25 Stat. 433, 434, c. 866, that such court shall not have cognizance of a suit to recover the contents of a promissory note in favor of an assignee or subsequent holder, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court if no assignment had been made. When the genuineness of a paper sued on is put in issue, papers not otherwise competent may be introduced in Oregon for the purpose of enabling the jury to make a comparison of handwritings. A witness who has sworn to the genuineness of a disputed signature to a note, may be further asked if he would act upon it if it came to him in an ordinary business transaction. The admission of evidence of a collateral fact, which might have been rejected by the trial court without committing error, does not constitute error which will of itself justify reversal of the judgment below, if the case of the plaintiff in error was not injured by it. THIS was an action brought by L. Goldsmith and Max Goldsmith, doing business as partners under the name of L. Goldsmith & Co., citizens of the State of New York, against M. B. Holmes, John Dillard and R. Phipps, citizens of the State of Oregon, as makers of a promissory note, in the words and figures following: "$10,000. PORTLAND, OREGON, Aug. 9, 1886. "Six months after date, without grace, we, or either of us, promise to pay to the order of W. F. Owens ten thousand dollars, for value received, with interest from date at the rate of ten per cent per annum until paid, principal and interest payable in U. S. gold coin, at the first National Bank in Portland, Oregon, and in case suit is instituted to collect this note or any portion thereof, we promise to pay such additional sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees in said suit. "M. B. HOLMES, On the day of its date, W. F. Owens endorsed the note, waived, in writing, demand, notice and protest, delivered the note, so endorsed, to the agent of the plaintiffs, and received the sum of ten thousand dollars. Argument for Plaintiffs in Error. The complaint alleged that the transaction was a loan by plaintiffs to W. F. Owens; that the defendants executed the note for the accommodation of Owens, to enable him to procure the loan thereon; and that Owens was, in fact, a maker of said note to the plaintiffs, and never himself had any cause of action thereon against the defendants. To this complaint the defendants demurred, on the ground that it did not bring the case within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Upon argument this demurrer was overruled. 36 Fed. Rep. 484. The defendants answered, denying the execution of the note, and knowledge of the other facts alleged in the complaint. At the trial a verdict was given in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount of the note, with interest from date, and on June 19, 1889, judgment was entered on the verdict, in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, for the amount of the note with interest and with costs and disbursements. A writ of error was duly sued out and allowed, and the case brought into this court for review. Mr. John H. Mitchell for plaintiffs in error. The first and second assignments of error relate to the jurisdiction of the court: whether the note sued upon comes within the prohibitory provision of the act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433, c. 866. That provision is as follows: "Nor shall any Circuit or District Court have cognizance of any suit except upon foreign bills of exchange, to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent holder if such instrument be payable to bearer unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment or transfer had been made." . It is scarcely necessary to state the familiar rule that all facts essential to confer jurisdiction on a Federal court must be made to appear affirmatively by material allegations, and Argument for Plaintiffs in Error. in determining the question of jurisdiction every immaterial averment in a complaint, if any, must be eliminated in its consideration. In other words, as stated by Chief Justice Ellsworth in this court so long ago as Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8, 11, "The fair presumption is (not as with regard to a court of general jurisdiction that a cause is within its jurisdiction unless the contrary appears, but rather) that a cause is without its jurisdiction till the contrary appears." Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 84. See also Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393; Ex parte Smith, 94 U. S. 455; King Iron Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U. S. 225; Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229. This suit is on a contract or agreement, if such terms may with propriety be applied to a promissory note, in writing, namely a negotiable promissory note, the defendants being the makers; W. F. Owens, the payee and endorser; and the plaintiffs endorsees or assignees. Whatever rights might attach to the defendants and the payee to show by parol proof under certain circumstances the relations they bore severally to each other, it is submitted that the plaintiffs are not at liberty for any purpose, much less for the purpose of making a case conferring jurisdiction on the Circuit Court, to either aver in their complaint or prove by parol a state of case different from that presented by the writings. In other words, this is a suit brought in a Circuit Court to recover the contents of a promissory note, by the assignee thereof, which suit, it is manifest, could not have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment had been made. While the act of 1888 is more restrictive in its provisions than the judiciary act of September 24, 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 79, c. 20, § 11, the two are substantially similar, so far as they relate to promissory notes other than those payable to bearer. Therefore the judicial construction placed by this court on the act of 1789 is applicable to the act of 1888. Fisk v. Henarie, 142 U. S. 459. This clause of the judiciary act of 1789 was interpreted by this court-first by an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Young v. Brian, 6 Wheat. 146, and Argument for Plaintiffs in Error. the construction then placed upon it was subsequently cited and approved in the following cases: Mullen v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537; Evans v. Gee, 11 Pet. 80; Phillips v. Preston, 5 How. 278; Bank of the United States v. Moss, 6 How. 31; Coffee v. Planters' Bank of Tennessee, 13 How. 183; Keary v. Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank of Memphis, 16 Pet. 88. See also Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 46. These authorities, and they do not seem to have been overruled, lay down very clearly and without qualification the two following propositions: 1. That under this clause of the judiciary act of 1789, an endorsee of a promissory note may bring a suit in the Circuit Court to recover the contents thereof against the immediate endorser and a citizen of a different State, whether a suit could be brought in such court by such endorser against the maker or not. That in such a case the endorsee does not claim through an assignment. It is a new contract entered into by the endorser and endorsee upon which the suit is brought; and 2. That in a suit brought in a Circuit Court to recover the contents of a promissory note by the endorsee against either the maker or a remote endorser, it is necessary, in order to confer jurisdiction, to aver in the complaint the fact that the payee or promisee named in such note is a citizen of a State other than that of which the maker of the note is a citizen. The same doctrine is approved in Morgan's Executor v. Gay, 19 Wall. 81; King Iron Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U. S. 225; Newgass v. New Orleans, 33 Fed. Rep. 196; Ambler v. Eppinger, 137 U. S. 480; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121. The case at bar, the court will bear in mind, is a suit brought by the endorsees, not against an endorser, either immediate or remote, but against the makers of the note, the payee or endorser not being joined as a party. In view of the foregoing authorities, this clearly being a suit to recover the contents of a promissory note by the assignees thereof against the makers, and the complaint so far from |