8T. LODIS NÀX. BK. V. BBINEHaN. 45 �An order will be entered referring it to a master to ascer- tain and report as to the truth of the existence of records in any way corresponding with those set forth in the pleas, and directing the master, with his report, to return copies of said alleged records, which shall he produced before him by the defendants, unless, within ten days after entry and notice of this order, the defendants shall iile with their pleas, and to be taken as parts thereof, copies of the records set forth or intended to be set forth therein. And, if such copies are filed, then this motion to be denied; and the plaintiiî is to have till the next rule day, after the coming of the master' s report or notice of such filing, to demur, reply to, or set down for argument the said pleas. ���The St. Louis Nat. Bk. v. Beinkmak. �{Circuit Court, D. Kansas. January 7, 1880.) �National Banks — Iuiupdiction.— National banks are not authorized to institute suits in the federal courts eut of the districts where they are established, when the ainount in controversy does not exceed $500. �Sterry & Seclgwick, for plaintiff. �Gardiner Laihrop, for defendant. �FosïER, J. The plaintiiî is a national bank, duly organized under the act of congi-ess of June 3, 1864, (13 U. S. St. 99,) and is established and doing business at the city of St. Louis, state of Missouri. It brings this action against the defend- ant, who is a citizen of the state of Kansas, to recover the sum "bî $138.51, with interest from August 10, 1878, at 10 per cent, per annum, for so much money collected by defend- ant for the use and benefit of plaintiff. �The defendant maintains that the plaintiff, beinga national bank established out of this judicial district, this court bas no jurisdiction. �The question is one upon which I have found no adjudicated case, and we have to look to the several acts of congress to cletermine the point at issue. ��� �
