defense; Wallace v. United States, 162 U. S. 475, 40 L. Ed. 1043, 16 Sup. Ct. 863, arguendo.

Deceased's threats are inadmissible to show grudge or ill-will on part of accused.

Approved in Smith v. United States, 161 U. S. 88, 40 L. Ed. 627, 16 Sup. Ct. 484, evidence that deceased was a larger, stronger man than accused, and generally reputed dangerous, is admissible; Green v. United States, 2 Okl. Cr. 60, 101 Pac. 114, and Echols v. State, 99 Miss. 696, 55 South. 487, both holding threats are admissible to show who was the aggressor.

Evidence of antecedent threats in homicide. Note, 3 L. R. А. (N. S.) 524.

Jury determines question of self-defense.

Approved in Price v. State, 1 Okl. Cr. 386, 98 Pac. 459, applying principle; Watkins v. United States, 1 Ind. Ted. 377, 387, 41 S. W. 1047, 1050, holding self-defense is to be judged from defendant's standpoint; Johnson v. State, 125 Tenn. 433, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 261, 143 S. W. 1137, holding court should not instruct as to what constituted overt act.

Charge should not take form of animated argument.

Approved in People v. Barberi, 149 N. Y. 279, 52 Am. St. Rep. 733, 43 Ν. Ε. 642, following rule; dissenting opinion in Greene v. United States, 154 Fed. 418, 85 C. C. A. 251, majority allowing charge which took two days to deliver.

Miscellaneous. Cited in In re Laing, 127 Fed. 218, holding, under the facts of this case, killing was justified.

160 U. S. 217-220, 40 L. Ed. 401, 16 Sup. Ct. 217, INTERIOR CONSTR. ETC. CO. v. GIBNEY.

Where record and petition shows only question of jurisdiction, cause is sufficiently certified.

Approved in Petri v. Creelman Lumber Co., 199 U. S. 492, 50 L. Ed. 285, 26 Sup. Ct. 133, reaffirming rule; United States v. Larkin, 208 U. S. 339, 52 L. Ed. 520, 28 Sup. Ct. 417, holding question of unlawful seizure of goods does not raise question of jurisdiction; Arkansas v. Schlierholz, 179 U. S. 600, 45 L. Ed. 337, 21 Sup. Ct. 231, holding sufficient certification on question of jurisdiction of Circuit Court is not made by order allowing appeal from decision that land office agent is entitled to his discharge from sheriff; Huntington v. Laidley, 176 U. S. 676, 44 L. Ed. 634, 20 Sup. Ct. 529, holding direct appeal from Circuit Court to Supreme Court on ground that jurisdiction of Circuit Court is in issue may be sustained when record shows only question is jurisdiction; Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 507, 40 L. Ed. 513, 16 Sup. Ct. 399, following rule; Elkhart Nat. Bank v. Northwestern etc. Loan Co., 84 Fed. 76, arguendo.

4

Distinguished in Filhiol v. Torney, 194 U. S. 358, 48 L. Ed. 1016, 24 Sup. Ct. 698, where demurrer went both to jurisdiction and merits and assignment of errors and petition for writ of error were general, not equivalent of certificate of jurisdiction.

Supreme Court will dismiss sua sponte where necessary diverse citizenship does not appear.

Approved in Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 218 Fed. 98, holding cause may be removed to district in which it could not have been brought originally.

Appearance, if general, waives objection merely to district in which suit is brought.

Approved in A. L. Wolff & Co. v. Choctaw etc. R. Co., 133 Fed. 602, Gemundt v. Shipley, 98 Md. 662, 57 Atl. 14, and In re Woodbury, 98 Fed. 839, all following rule; United States v. Hooslef, 237 U. S. 12, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 286, 59 L. Ed. 818, 35 Sup. Ct. 459, holding pleading to merits is waiver of jurisdiction; Western Loan etc. Co. v. Butte etc. Consol. Min. Co., 210 U. S. 370, 52 L. Ed. 1102, 28 Sup. Ct. 720, holding demurrer to merits in addition to plea to jurisdiction is waiver of objection to jurisdiction; Matter of Moore, 209 U. S. 505, 14 Ann. Cas. 1164, 52 L. Ed. 911, 28 Sup. Ct. 585, 706, holding objection to jurisdiction may be waived by consent; Frontier S. S. Co. v. Franklin S. S. Co., 233 Fed. 129, holding notice of appearance is waiver of defects in service; Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage, 218 Fed. 549, 134 C. С. А. 275, holding joining demurrer to court's jurisdiction will not save objection; Eldorado Coal & Min. Co. v. Mariotti, 215 Fed. 54, 7 N. C. С. А. 969, 131 С. С. A. 359, Detroit Trust Co. v. Pontiac Sav. Bank, 196 Fed. 32, 115 C. C. A. 663, and McEldowney v. Card, 193 Fed. 479, all applying principle; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Louisville etc. R. Co., 201 Fed. 942, 120 C. C. A. 257, holding where none of defendants are residents of district cause is not removable without plaintiff's consent; Southern Pac. Co. v. Arlington Heights Fruit Co., 191 Fed. 106, 111 C. C. A. 581, holding party joining plea to merits with plea to jurisdiction does not waive objection; Katallo Co. v. Rones, 186 Fed. 37, 108 C. C. A. 132, holding defendant proceeding to trial cannot later move to dismiss for want of jurisdiction; Fribourg v. Pullman Co., 176 Fed. 985, holding where neither party is resident of district cause cannot be moved over defendant's objection; Clark v. Southern Pac. Co., 175 Fed. 127, holding suit under Federal Compensation Act is one arising under laws of United States; Lefkowitz v. Foster Hose Supporter Co., 161 Fed. 376, holding suit for breach of license contract for patent raises no Federal question; McPhee & McGinnity v. Union Pac. R. Co., 158 Fed. 8, 87 C. C. A. 619, holding filing of general demurrers waives objection; Dulles v. H. D. Crippen Mfg. Co., 156 Fed. 709, holding where demurrer is partly to merits question of jurisdiction is waived; Midland Contracting Co. v. Toledo Foundry etc. Co., 154 Fed. 798, 83 C. C. A. 489, holding party seeking extension of time to plead waives objection to jurisdiction; Thompson v. Automatic Fire Protection Co., 151 Fed. 946, allowing amendment to complaint to show jurisdictional amount; Bolles v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 127 Fed. 885, holding right to maintain suit in Circuit Court of United States where parties were citizens of different States is not lost by assignment of cause of action to one who is citizen of different State from defendant; United States Consol. Seeded Raisin Co. v. Phoenix Raisin etc. Co., 124 Fed. 236, 237, holding provision of U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, pp. 588, 589, relating to patent suits, is waived by filing answer; Barnes v. Western Union Tel. Co., 120 Fed. 555, holding irregular service of process by deputy marshal in action where marshal is plaintiff is waived by answer to merits; Occidental Consol. Min. Co. v. Comstock Tunnel Co., 120 Fed. 519, holding Circuit Court has jurisdiction where plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different States although neither is inhabitant of district where defendant answers to merits; Platt v. Massachusetts Real Estate Co., 103 Fed. 706, holding provision of section 1, Federal Judiciary Act 1887-88, relating to jurisdiction on account of diversity of citizenship, is waived by general appearance; Lowry v. Tile etc. Assn., 98 Fed. 821, 822, holding defendant by general appearance waives objection of misjoinder because other defendants are not inhabitants of district; Scott v. Hoover, 99 Fed. 251, holding filing demurrer to complaint waives objection that action is not brought as provided by 1 Supp. Rev. Stats., p. 612, in Circuit Court in district of which defendant is an inhabitant; Marks v. Marks, 75 Fed. 332, provisions (acts of 1887-88) as to district wherein action shall be brought may be waived unless seasonably objected to; Creagh v. Equitable Life Assur. Society, 83 Fed. 850, fact that defendant, sued by alien, resides in another district does not affect right to remove; Van Doren v. Pennsylvania R. R., 93 Fed. 263, 35 C. C. A. 282, reaffirming rule; Rodgers v. Pitt, 96 Fed. 677, objections to mode of acquisition of jurisdiction are waived when not made in time; Farnsworth v. Union Pac. Coal Co., 32 Utah, 118, 89 Pac. 76, holding fact that one ground of general demurrer goes to jurisdiction is not sufficient; White v. Rio Grande etc. Ry., 25 Utah, 358, 71 Pac. 597, holding right to have action tried in county where it arose under Const., art. VIII, § 5, Utah, is waived by filing demurrer.

Distinguished in Utah-Nevada Co. v. De Lamar, 133 Fed. 116, 66 C. C. A. 179, objection that action is based on assignment, and it does not appear that action could have been maintained by assignor, may be raised at any time.

Whether those defendants who are in district may object to district,

quaere.

Cited in In re Keasbey & Mattison Co., 160 U. S. 229, 40 L. Ed. 405, 16 Sup. Ct. 275, corporation, by appointing agent in another district, does not waive right to insist that suit be brought in its own district; Elkhart Nat. Bank v. Northwestern etc. Loan Co., 84 Fed. 77, court of residence of stockholders of foreign corporations has no jurisdiction over suit by creditor for accounting and individual liability, unless corporation voluntarily appears; Memphis v. Board of Directors of St. Francis Levee District, 228 Fed. 803, dismissing suit not brought in district of defendant's residence; Peale v. Marian Coal Co., 172 Fed. 640, holding corporation doing business in Pennsylvania did not make it resident of that district.

Miscellaneous. Cited in The Fair v. Kohler Die etc. Co., 228 U. S. 25, 57 L. Ed. 717, 33 Sup. Ct. 410, holding suit under patent laws is necessarily within jurisdiction of Federal courts; Park Square Automobile Station v. American Locomotive Co., 222 Fed. 989, 992, holding cause can only be removed to district of defendant's residence.

160 U. S. 221-231, 40 L. Ed. 402, 16 Sup. Ct. 273, IN RE KEASBEY & MATTISON CO.

Appearance, if general, waives objection merely to district in which suit is brought.

Approved in Davidson Bros. Marble Co. v. United States, 213 U. S. 17, 53 L. Ed. 678, 29 Sup. Ct. 324, holding courts cannot construe special appearance to attack jurisdiction as general appearance; Western Loan etc. Co. v. Butte etc. Consol. Min. Co., 210 U. S. 370, 52 L. Ed. 1102, 28 Sup. Ct. 720, holding demurrer going to merits is waiver of jurisdiction; Eldorado Coal & Min. Co. v. Mariotti, 215 Fed. 54, 7 N. C. C. A. 969, 131 C. C. A. 359, applying rule where defendant demurred to merits; Reich v. Tennessee Copper Co., 209 Fed. 881, holding party need not necessarily bring suit in division of district in which he resides; McEldowney v. Card, 193 Fed. 479, applying principle; Bogue v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 193 Fed. 731, holding defendant must timely assert his privilege of having suit brought in proper district; Cound v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 173 Fed. 534, dismissing suit not brought in district of defendant's residence; Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Min. Co., 130 Fed. 791, those parts of statute which relate to "inhabitancy" and "residence" affect personal privilege of venue only; Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 88 Fed. 262, 31 С. С. А. 525, arguendo.

Corporation, by doing business in other district, does not waive objection to suit there.

Approved in United States v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 134 Fed. 718, 67 С. С. А. 269, reaffirming rule; Macon Grocery Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 215 U. S. 508, 512, 54 L. Ed. 304, 305, 30 Sup. Ct. 184, holding suit to enjoin advance in freight rates must be brought in district of defendant's residence; Memphis v. Board of Directors of St. Francis Levee District, 228 Fed. 803, 804, holding cause of action arising under laws of United States can only be brought in district of defendant's residence; Grabsky v. Belmont Coal Min. Co., 210 Fed. 554, holding corporation not liable to suit outside district although maintaining agent and office in same; Revett v. Clise, 207 Fed. 676, holding fact that corporation has general agent does not render it amenable to service of process; Baldwin v. Pacific Power etc. Co., 199 Fed. 294, holding corporation cannot be compelled to answer outside of its residence; Stone v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 195 Fed. 834, 838, 839, holding action brought in State court by citizen of another State against corporation of third State is not removable to Federal courts; L. G. McKnight & Son Co. v. Cramer Furniture Co., 189 Fed. 49, 110 C. C. A. 612, holding corporation cannot be sued in State where it does not do business; Hagstoz v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 179 Fed. 571, holding appointment of registered agent is not waiver of objection to suit; Elk Garden Co. v. T. W. Thayer Co., 179 Fed. 558, 559, holding corporation must be served in district designated for service of process; Ware-Kramer Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 178 Fed. 120, holding action of tort against corporation can only be brought in district of incorporation; Peale v. Marian Coal Co., 172 Fed. 640, holding fact that corporation does business in Pennsylvania does not make it resident of that State; Imperial Colliery Co. v. Chesapeake etc. Ry. Co., 171 Fed. 589, and Memphis Cotton Oil Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 164 Fed. 291, both holding suit against railroad under Interstate Commerce Act must be brought in State of defendant's incorporation; Baumgarten v. Alliance Assur. Co., 153 Fed. 304, holding alien insurance company is nonresident of State; A. L. Wolff & Co. v. Choctaw etc. R. Co., 133 Fed. 602, 603, corporation not inhabitant of district where it merely transacts business and has agent upon whom process may be served; Gale v. Southern Bldg. etc. Assn., 117 Fed. 734, holding under act Congress March 3, 1875, relating to jurisdiction, foreign corporation may be sued in district of plaintiff's residence where proper service has been made under Code Va. 1887, § 1104; Platt v. Massachusetts Real Estate Co., 103 Fed. 707, holding compliance by corporation with statute of another State requiring person on whom process may be served to be designated does not make it citizen of that State, and it may insist on right of being sued only in district of its incorporation or residence of plaintiff; Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Tompkins, 101 Fed. 545, 41 С. С. А. 488, holding where plaintiff, who had been resident of West Virginia, removed into Virginia and determined to return to West Virginia, but before removal brought suit in Circuit Court of United States in West Virginia against California corporation, court had no jurisdiction; Row-botham v. George P. Steele Iron Co., 71 Fed. 758, compliance with State requirement of appointment of agent on whom service may be made, does not waive right to insist on suit in district of incorporation;

XVII-26