(Fowler v. Lindsay, 3 Dall. 411, 415; S. C. 1 Pet. Com. 190, 191; New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 1-6; United States v. Peters, 5 Cr. 115, 139; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 15, p. 302.) Story's Const. § 1685.

206. "CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES." Contro

199-201.

"CONTROVERSIES is synonymous with civil suits. Curtis' versies? Com. § 73. It may be deduced: 1. That they are all citizens of Who are the United States, who are domiciliated in a State; (Scott v. Sand- citizens of a State? ford, 19 How. 393.) 2. And they are suits where one party is a citizen of one State, and the other a citizen of another. Curtis' 17, 19, 25, 93, 169, 220Coin. § 73. The situation of the parties, rather than their char- 222. acters determines the jurisdiction. Id. At the commencement of What deterthe suit. Connoly v. Taylor, 2 Peters, 556, 564.

mines the jurisdiction? parties is What does Hartshorn citizenship

mean?

274.

222.

This clause does not embrace cases where one of the a citizen of a territory, or of the District of Columbia. v. Wright, Peters C. C. 61; Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 377; Hepburn 6, 18, 98, v. Elszey, 2 Cr. 445; Corporation of New Orleans v. Winter, 1 170, 220. Wh. 91; Gassies v. Ballou, 6 Pet. 761; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 17, p. 274. 360; Story's Const. § 1693, 1694; Curtis' Com. § 77. Citizenship, when spoken of in the Constitution, in reference to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, means nothing more than resi dence. Lessee of Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash. C. C. 546; Gassies v. Ballou, 6 Pet. 761; Shelton v. Tiffiu, 6 How. 163; Lessee of Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Wash. C. C. 101. But a free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, nor entitled to sue in that character in the federal courts. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393-4. But see the Civil Rights Bill, note 6, p. 55; 14 St. p. 27, § 1; Paschal's Annotated Digest, Art. 5382. A corporation created by, and transacting business in a State, is to be deemed an inhabitant of the State, capable of being treated as a citizen, for all purposes of suing and being sued. Louisville R. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497; Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. 16 Id. 314; Wheeden v. Camden & Amboy R. R. Co. 4 Am. L. R. 296. The judiciary act confines the jurisdiction, on the ground of citizenship, to cases where the suit is between a citizen of a State and a citizen of another State; and, although the Constitution gives a broader extent to the judicial power, the actual jurisdiction of the circuit courts is governed by the act of Congress. Moffat v. Soley, 2 Paine, 103; Hubbard v. Northern R. R. Co. 25 Vt. 715. So, too, in the same act, there is an exception, that where suit is brought in favor of an assignee, there shall be no jurisdiction, unless suit could have been brought in the courts of the United States, had no assignment been made. This is a restriction on the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution; and yet this provision has been sustained by the Supreme Court since its organization. Assignee of Brainard v. Williams, 4 McLeau, 122; Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441. The Constitution has defined the limits of the judicial power, but has not prescribed how much of it shall be exercised by the circuit courts. Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 10; McIntyre v. Wood, 7 Cr. 506; Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 616; Cary v. Curtis 3 How. 245.

How must

It is well understood by those experienced in the jurisprudence of the United States, that Congress has conferred upon the federal courts but a portion of the jurisdiction contemplated by the Constitution. Clarke v. City of Janesville, 4 Am. L. R. 593. The plaintiffs should distinctly aver that they are citizens of different States; and in the absence of such averment, the judgment will be reversed for want of jurisdiction. (Bingham v. Cabott, 3 Dall. 382; Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cr. 126; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cr. 46.) Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 420. Curtis' Com. § 79, note 4. But if the citizenship be denied, it should be by plea in abatement, or it should otherwise appear in the record. Id. See 1 Brightly's Dig. p. 126. sec. 17, and notes thereon. The Constitution of the Confederate States omitted this jurisdiction. Paschal's Annotated Dig. p. 92. In other respects it corresponded to this section and the eleventh amendment. Id.

The citizenship must be expressly averred, or the facts which the citizen- constitute it must be set forth. (Turner v. Bank of North America, ship be 4 Dall. 8; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cr. 46; Bailey v. Dozier, 6 How. 23.) Curtis' Com. § 78.

averred?

What is

the extent of the

jurisdiction?

Can a corpo. ration be a citizen?

See the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, 1 St. 78; 1 Brightly's Digest, p. 126 and notes.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 limited jurisdiction of national courts so far as they are determined by citizenship, "to suits between a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought and a citizen of another State," and except in relation to revenue cases this limitation remains unchanged. Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 542. In consequence of nullification the jurisdiction was extended to "all cases in law or equity arising under the revenue laws of the United States for which other provisions have not already been made." (4 Stat. 632.) Id. And by this act many suits brought in the State courts were removed into the circuit courts (Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137; Bend v. Hoyt, 13 Pet. 267); Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 542. The fiftieth section of the Internal Revenue Act of 1854 extended the act of 1833 to all cases arising under the laws for the collection of internal duties. (12 Stat. 241.) Id. But the act of 1866 repealed the fiftieth section aforesaid, without any saving of such causes as were then pending, and said that "the act of 1833 shall not be so construed as to apply to cases arising under act of 1864," &c. This ousted jurisdiction in the causes then pending. Id. When the jurisdiction of a cause depends upon a statute, the repeal of which takes away the jurisdiction, or it is prohibited by a subsequent statute, it can no longer be exercised. (Rex v. Justices of London, 3 Burrow, 1456; Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 229.) Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 544. where the case would be removable under the new provision, and it is the opinion of the circuit judge that it ought to be retained, the jurisdiction is not lost. City of Philadelphia v. Collector, 4 Wall. 720-30.

But

As respects the proof of the residence or domiciliation to constitute citizenship, see Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 163, 185.

A corporation, whose members are citizens of a different State from the other party, is a citizen of a different State. Hope Ins.

Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cr. 57; Bank of United States v. Devaux, 5 207, 220, 221. Cr. 61; United States v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 410; Story's Const. 1695; Curtis' Com. § 76, 78. The doctrine is to be extended to its creation and place of business. The Commercial & Railroad Bank of Vicksburg v. Slocomb, 14 Pet. 60.

207. "BETWEEN CITIZENS OF THE SAME STATE CLAIMING What is a LANDS UNDER GRANTS OF DIFFERENT STATES."-A grant of land grant? is a title emanating from the sovereignty of the soil.

Cases of grants made by different States are within the jurisdic- When aro tion, notwithstanding one of the States, at the time of the first grants by different grant, was part of the other. Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cr. 292. States? It is the grant which passes the legal title; and if the controversy is founded upon the conflicting grants of different States, the federal courts have jurisdiction, whatever may have been the prior equitable title of the parties. Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wh. 377. Notwithstanding one State may have originally covered the territory of both. The question is, have the grants been made by different States? Id.; Curtis' Com. § 80.

208. "CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN A STATE OR THE CITIZENS 205, 205α, THEREOF, AND FOREIGN STATES, CITIZENS, OR SUBJECTS."-This 211. What was was intended to give cognizance to the federal judiciary where the object of foreign States, or individual foreigners, are parties. See Chappe- this providelaine v. De Chenaux, 4 Cr. 306, 308; Brown v. Strode, 5 Cr. 303, sion? An Indian tribe, or nation, within the United States, is not a Is an Indian foreign State," within the meaning of this clause. Cherokee tribe a foreign Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1. See this case for a definition of the State? relations of the Cherokees, as a dependent subordinate State. The very term "nation," so generally applied to them, means "a people distinct from others." Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 619.

แ

91,

209. "FOREIGN CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS."-If the party to the What aliens record be an alien, he is within this clause, whether he sue in can sue? his own right, or as trustee, if he has a substantive interest as a trustee. Chappedelaine v. De Chenaux, 4 Cr. 306. And if the nominal plaintiff, although a citizen, sue for the use of an alien, who is the real party in interest, the case is within the jurisdic- Suppose a tion. Browne v. Strode, 5 Id. 303. A foreign corporation is an nominal alien for this purpose. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel sue for an plaintiff v. Town of New Haven, 8 Wh. 464. Possibly enlarged to creation alien? and residence. Commercial & Railroad Bank of Vicksburg v. Slo- 206, 220, 221. comb, 14 Pet. 60; Curtis' Com. § 81.

The opposite party must be a citizen, and this must appear from Is there the record. Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136.

jurisdiction where both parties aro

A mere declaration of intention to become a citizen, under the naturalization laws, is not sufficient to prevent an alien from being aliens? regarded as a foreign subject, within the meaning of this clause. Baird v. Byre, 3 Wall. Jr.

An alien is a stranger born; a person born in another or 6, 18, 93, 220. foreign country, as distinguished from a native or natural born Who are citizen or subject. In English law, born out of the legiance or aliens? allegiance of the king. Co. Litt. 128, 129a; 7 Co. 31; 1 Bl. Com. 366, 373; 2 Steph. Com. 426-129. In American law,

274.

What are

one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States; 2 Kent's Com. 50; Burrill's Law Dic., ALIEN.

At common law an alien cannot maintain a real action or one for the rights of the recovery of real estate. (Co. Litt. 129; Shepherd's Touchstone, aliens to re204; Roscoe on Real Actions, 197; Littleton, § 198.) White v. cover real Sabariego, 23 Tex. 246.

estate?

What are the aliens' rights to take and hold?

What is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

And see Jones v. McMasters, 20 How. 8, 20, 21; Paschal's Annotated Digest, notes 147-150, 237-240; 1168-1170a, and the numerous cases upon the rights of aliens there cited. Lanfear v. Hunly, 4 Wall. 209; McDonough v. Millandon, 3 How. 707; Semple v. Hagar, 4 Wall. 433, 434; 1 Daniel, ch. 53; Bayes v. Hogg, 1 Hayw. 485; Orser v. Hoag, 3 Hill, 79.

But an alien may take lands and may hold them against every person except the king, and against the king until inquisition of office. And if the alien be naturalized, before seizure by the government, the alien's title vests absolutely, and by relation relates back to the date of the purchase. Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cr. 603; Cox v. McIlvaine, 2 Cond. 86; Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259; Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. 489; Carneal v. Banks, 10 Wheat. 181; Jackson v. Clarke, 3 Wheat. 1; Craig v. Leslie, 3 Wheat. 563, 589; Craig v. Radford, 3 Wheat. 594; Orr v. Hodgson, 4 Wheat. 453; Fox v. Southack, 12 Mass. 148; Jackson v. Adams, 7 Wend. 376; Jackson ex dem. Culverhouse v. Beach, 1 John's Cases, 399; S. C. 4 Johns. 75; Bradwell v. Weeks, 1 Johns. 206; Moore v. White, 6 Johns. Chan. 360; Cross v. De Valla, 1 Wall. 13; Osterman v. Baldwin, U. S. S. C., Dec. 7, 1867; 6 Wall. 000. The annexation of Texas removed the alienage from citizens of the United States. Osterman v. Baldwin, 6 Wall. 000; Cryer v. Andrews, 11 Tex. 170-183; Paschal's Annotated Digest, notes, 148, 237, 238; McKinney v. Sabariego, 18 How. 239.

The disability of the alien to maintain the real action is personal, and, at common law, relates, not to the date of acquiring the property, but of bringing the suit. 1 Chitty's Pl. 470, 471; 7 Bacon's Abridgment, Tit. USES AND TRUSTS, E. 2, p. 89; 1 Id. ALIEN, D, 137; Coke Litt. 129; Id. (B. 3) p. 6; Comyn's Dig., ALIEN (C.), p. 301; Kemp v. Kennedy, 1 Pet. C. C. R. 40; affirmed 5 Cr. 173; 2 Cond. 223.

[2] In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, Appellate? the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

210. The Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction except in the two classes of cases mentioned in the first clause. Story's Const. § 1702. And to that extent it would seem to be exclusive. United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137.

applied?

"CASES" here is applied as a generic term to all the objects How is the designated by "case" and "controversy" in the preceding clause. term cases See "case" Curtis' Com. § 83. and 66 controversy" defined. 199-201. Id.; ante, n. 199; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 333; Curtis' Com. 124-130. If the words "to all cases give exclusive jurisdiction in cases affecting foreign MINISTERS, they may also give exclusive jurisdiction, if such be the will of Congress, in cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United 181, 182, 202. States. (Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 392-399.) Story's Const. § 1713.

diction of

every case

But it does not mean that the court has jurisdiction of every Has the CASE or question which may arise under the Constitution, laws, court jurisor treaties. These often necessarily devolve upon Congress or the executive, according as the law shall direct. (Luther v. Borden, or question? 7 How. 1.) Curtis' Com. § 84-85a. The word is therefore 195. limited to such "cases" as arise between parties, or are of a judicatory nature. (Madison, 5 Elliot's Debates, 483.) Id. § 85a,

100.

Not to all questions by which an AMBASSADOR may be affected. Id. See Stanbery's arguments in the Mississippi and Georgia Injunction cases, against the President and others, reported in 4 Wallace. See the United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40.

"ORIGINAL JURISDICTION" is the right to take original cog- What is nizance of the case or controversy, and to hear and determine original it in the first instance. It is that in which something is demanded jurisdiction? in the first instance by the institution of process, or the commencement of a suit. Curtis' Com. § 107; Story's Const. § 1703,

1704.

The residue of the original jurisdiction remains to be vested by Where is Congress in any inferior tribunals which it may see fit to create. the residue (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 307; Osborn v. The Bank of the of the original jurisdicUnited States, 9 Wheat. 738, 820; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. tion? 395; Story's Const. § 1698.) Curtis' Com. § 111.

of the

Original jurisdiction, so far as the Constitution gives a rule, is What is coextensive with the judicial power. (Osborn v. Bank of United the extent States, 9 Wheat. 820.) Curtis' Com. § 159. And it would seem original to follow that in cases where the Constitution itself has vested jurisdicoriginal jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, that investiture must tion? operate as an exception to the general authority to Congress to vest original jurisdiction according to its discretion. Id. And there is doubt whether in such cases jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not both original and exclusive. (United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467; See Story's Const. § 1699; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. XV. p. 315.) Curtis' Com. 160. But there are decisions the other way. United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297; and see also Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 431, 436; Act of 28 Feb. 1839 (5 St. 32); Curtis' Com. § 161-164; Schooner Exchange v. McFaddin, 2 Cr. 117.

tion?

Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a cause. It is What is coram judice, whenever a case is presented, which brings this jurisdicpower into action. If the petitioner states such a case in his peti. tion, that on a demurrer, the court would render judgment in his

195.