MARIOK V. BLIilS; 411 �Pardeb C. J. When this cause was lately before the court,* it was dccided that "the demurrers herein filed will be sustained except so far as the issue of Marion's ownerahip is concerned, and that will leave the petition or cross-bill substantially a plea to the jurisdiction, on the ground that Marion bas been collusively made a party in order to give the court jurisdiction." On this plea to the jurisdiction evidence has been taken and the parties have been heard. The evi- dence shows that the firm of Grobel & Co., being the holders of the mortgage notes in controversy, pledgod them to plaintiff, Marion, to secure the sum of $250 borrowed money; that the object of Grobel & Co. was to transfer the notes to such a holder as could institute foreclosure proceedings in the United States court ; that plaintiff, Marion, loaned the money to Grobel & Co., and took the notes in pledge, without any knowledge of the object of Grobel & Co. ; that he only learned the object after the transaction was completed. On this showing the matter is submitted to the court, and the question is whether the transaction is a pure simulation or a veritable contract. �There seems to be no doubt that, as between Marion and Grobel & Co., the arrangement is a binding contract. Marion paid the money over, and has not been repaidi He took the notes in pledge, as he had a right to do. He had no knowledge of the object of Grobel & & Co., even if that object would affect the transaction. This con- clusion decides the plea adversely, for there can be no doubt that if plaintifE became the pledgee of the notes in good faith, he would have undoubted right to bring suit for foreclosure. See Armstrongs v. Baldwin, 13 La. 566; Garrishv, Hyman, 29 La. Ann. 28; and see Giovanovich v. Citizens' Bank, 26 La. Ann. 15. The citizenship of the parties would give the court jurisdiction. �The case of Lawrence v. Holmes, decided at the last term, was a case of simulation; in other words, "there was no actual transfer of the account sued on. The transfer alleged was a pretence." �But it is urged that the friendly relations shown to exist between Marion and Grobel & Co., and the large amount of notes — over $3,000 — given in pledge between friends" to secure so small a loan, — $250 — evidences that the transaction, although a contract, was one made to give the court jurisdiction, and it is argued that this is a fraud on the court. �Concede that the contract of transfer was made by both parties with a view to enable suit to be instituted in this court, and still the �*See 9 FED. Rei-. 3G9. ��� �
