or intervention," of new parties whose citizenship would have prevented their original joinder in the suit; nor by the transfer of the plaintiff's interest to a citizen of the same State as the defendant.28 § 19. Citizenship.- If there are no other grounds of jurisdiction, the Federal courts do not take cognizance of a controversy between two aliens; nor of one between a citizen of the District of Columbia,2 or a citizen of a Territory, and a citizen of a State. A suit brought by a State against one of its own citizens, or against a citizen of another State, cannot, independently of other grounds, be maintained in the Circuit Court of the United States. If one of the parties sues or is sued as a trustee," receiver, executor or administrator,' his own But see Weaver v. Kelly, 92 Fed. R. 417; Mangels v. Donau Br. Co., 53 Fed. R. 513. 27 Park v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co. (S. D. N. Y.), 70 Fed. R. 641; Society of Shakers v. Watson (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R. 730; Osborne & Co. v. Barge, 30 Fed. R. 805; United El. S. Co. v. La. El. L. Co., 68 Fed. R. 673; Henderson v. Goode, 49 Fed. R. 887; Belmont Nail Co. v. Col. I. & S. Co., 46 Fed. R. 336; infra, § 201. Contra, Forest Oil Co. v. Crawford (C. C. A., Third Ct.), 101 Fed. R. 849. See also Clyde v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 65 Fed. R. 336. In a case where the jurisdiction had been saved by dismissing the bill as to certain unnecessary defendants, whose citizenship was the same as that of the complainant, it was held that they could subsequently be joined upon their own petition of intervention without defeating the jurisdiction. Sioux City T., R. R. & W. Co. v. Trust Co. of N. A. (C. C. A.), 82 Fed. R. 124; S. C., 173 U. S. 99. 28 Jarboe v. Templer, 38 Fed. R. 213; Glover v. Shepperd, 21 Fed. R. 481. Contra, Adams Exp. Co. v. Denver & R. G. Ry. Co., 16 Fed. R. 712. Dall. 12; Rateau v. Bernard, 8 2 Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445; 3 New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 9; Snead v. Sellers (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 371; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 322. It has been held that a citizen of the island of Cuba is an alien. Betancourt v. Mutual R. F. L. Ass'n, 101 Fed. R. 305. 4 Alabama v. Wolffe, 18 Fed. R. 836; Postal Tel. C. Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482; Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430; Indiana v. Tolleston Club, 53 Fed. R. 18; Minnesota v. Guaranty Tr. & S. D. Co., 73 Fed. R. 914. 5 Dodge v. Tulley, 144 U. S. 451. Davies v. Lathrop, 12 Fed. R. 353; Farlow v. Lea, 2 C. L. R. 829; Brisenden v. Chamberlain, 53 Fed. R. 307; Snead v. Sellers (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 371. 7 Continental L. Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237; Bradford v. Williams, 3 How. 574; Browne v. Browne, 1 Wash. 429; Harper v. Norfolk & W. § 19. 1 Mossman v. Higginson, 4 R. Co., 36 Fed. R. 102. citizenship, not that of his beneficiaries nor the location of the trust estate, is alone to be considered. When an infant sues by his next friend or special guardian, the citizenship of the infant alone is to be considered. A corporation is conclusively presumed to be composed of citizens of the State or Nation which chartered it, or from which it derives its powers. A municipal corporation is treated as a citizen of the State within which it is situated.10 This presumption is not made in the case of unincorporated joint-stock companies" or copartnerships, whether limited 12 or general, even in States where the law authorizes them to sue and be sued in the name of an officer, or in the copartnership name. Where a corporation is chartered by two or more States, the former rule seems to have been that it should be treated for the purpose of jurisdiction as composed of citizens of the State where the suit was brought.13 The rule now seems to be: that for purposes of jurisdiction it is conclusively presumed to be composed of citizens of the State which first gave it corporate existence; but that, unless the case arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the Federal court cannot adjudicate its rights or liabilities as a corporation of a State, citizens of which are upon the other side of the controversy.14 The present rule as to consolidated corporations is not clearly settled.15 A national bank is considered as if it 8 Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. R. 650; Voss v. Neinberger, 68 Fed. R. 947. Louisville, C. & C. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497; Marshall v. Balti more & O. R. Co., 16 How. 314; Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 446; Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118. For an able criticism of these rulings, see the address of Hon. Alfred Russell before the American Bar Association in August, 1891 (25 Am. Law Rev. 795-803). 10 Cowles v. Mercer County, 7 Wall. 118; City of Ysleta v. Canda, 67 Fed. R. 6. 11 Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 677. 12 Great So. F. P. H. Co. v. Jones, 177 U. S. 449. But see Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566. 13 Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286; Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444; Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Alabama, 107 U. S. 581. 14 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Louisville Tr. Co., 174 U. S. 552, 563, 576, 577. See also St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. James, 161 U. S. 545; St. Joseph & G. I. R. Co. v. Steele, 167 U. S. 659; Taylor v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 89 Fed. R. 119; Harv. Law Rev., vol. XII, p. 350. 15 See Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. V. Louisville Tr. Co., 174 U. S. 558; Graham v. Boston & E. R. Co., 118 were a citizen of the State in which it is located.16 The loca tion of the principal place of business of a corporation, which is not a national bank, does not affect the jurisdiction." The filing of a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States does not terminate a party's alienage, although he is permitted by the laws of the State of his residence to vote and hold office.18 An allegation that a party was "a citizen of London, England," was held to be insufficient to show that he was an alien.19 Residence is not conclusive evidence of citizenship.20 An exercise of the right of U. S. 161; Nashua & L. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. Co,, 136 U. S. 356; Paul v. B. & O. R. Co., 44 Fed. R. 513; Baldwin v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 86 Fed. R. 167. 16 24 St. at L., p. 554; First Nat. Bank v. Forest, 40 Fed. R. 705; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. McElhinney, 42 Fed. R. 801; Petri v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 142 U. S. 644; supra, § 17. 17 Phinizy v. Augusta & K. R. Co., 56 Fed. R. 273, 276. 18 Lanz v. Randall, 4 Dill. 425; Maloy v. Duden, 25 Fed. R. 673. 19 Stuart v. Easton, 156 U. S. 46. Cf. Rondot v. Tp. of Rogers (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R. 676; Jennes v. Laudes, 84 Fed. R. 73; s. C., 85 Fed. R. 801. But see Betancourt v. Mutual R. F. L. Ass'n, 101 Fed. R. 305. 20 Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 163, 185; Reynolds v. Adden, 136 U. S. 348, 352; Kemna v. Brockhaus, 5 Fed. R. 762, 763, 764, 766, 767, per Dyer, J.: "The general rule upon the subject of citizenship is well settled. It is that, 'in order to give jurisdiction to the courts of the United States, the citizenship of the party must be founded on a change of domicile, and permanent residence in the State to which he may have removed from another State. Mere residence is prima facie evidence of such change, although when it is explained and shown to have been for temporary purposes, the presumption is destroyed. The intention is to be collected from acts.' Lessee of Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Wash. 101; 1 Abb. (U. S.) Pr. 211. 'If a citizen of one State think proper to change his domicile, and to remove himself and family . into another State, with a bona fide intention of abandoning his former place of residence, and to become an inhabitant or resident of the State to which he removes, he becomes, immediately upon such removal, accompanied with such intention, a resident citizen of that State within the meaning of the provision of the Constitution relative to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and may maintain an action in the Circuit Court of the State which he has abandoned. . . . Time in relation to his new residence, occupation, a sudden removal back after instituting a suit, and the like, are circumstances which may be relied upon to show that his first removal was not bona fide or permanent, but will not disprove his citizenship in the place of his new domicile, if the jury are satisfied that his first removal was bona fide and without an intention of returning.' Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash. 564. 'If there has been an actual removal, with intent to make a permanent residence, and the acts 24 suffrage by a citizen of the United States is conclusive evidence of his citizenship." Less evidence may, however, be sufficient to establish a change of citizenship." A statement in a document signed by him that a person is "of" a specified State is evidence that he is a citizen of the same,23 but does not estop him from proving the contrary. It has been held that a party may testify that up to a certain date he was a citizen of a specified State, and that others cannot, but must confine their testimony to facts from which his citizenship can be inferred.25 It has been held that a husband and wife who are not living apart under a legal separation cannot be citizens of different States. The fact that a plaintiff has changed his residence and citizenship for the purpose of bringing suit in the Federal court does not divest the jurisdiction if the change has actually 26 of the party correspond with the purpose, the change of domicile is completed, and the law forces upon him the character of a citizen of the State where he has chosen his domicile.' Butler v. Farnsworth, supra. A temporary return to one's former place of residence, with views and for objects merely temporary, does not revive a former citizenship. Burnham v. Rangely, 1 Woodb. & M. 7. If the change of residence or citizenship is apparent only, and there has been, in fact, no change of residence, but only a transfer of apparent residence, animo revertendi, to give color of jurisdiction in a suit in the State of actual residence, it may not avail; but, where there is an actual change of residence and citizenship before suit brought, the motive to such change is not material, even if it was a desire to give capacity to sue in the courts of the United States.' Pond v. Vermont Valley R. Co., 12 Blatchf. 293. So, to effect a change of citizenship from one State to another, there must be an actual removal, an actual change of domicile, with a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new 21 Rabaud v. D'Wolf, 1 Paine, 580; 22 Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. (U. S.) 163, 185; Marks v. Marks, 75 Fed. R. 321. 23 Rucker v. Bolles (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 504. 24 Reynolds v. Adden, 136 U. S. 348. 25 Rucker v. Bolles, 80 Fed. R. 504; Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U. S. 327. 26 Nichols v. Nichols, 92 Fed. R. 1. 27 been made without any intention to return.28 But where the stockholders of a corporation reincorporated in another State solely for that purpose, it was held that the case should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.29 It has been held that when the necessary difference of citizenship is duly alleged and is traversed, the defendant has the burden of proof to show that it does not exist.30 A change of citizenship after the jurisdiction has once attached will not divest it; " even, it was held, in case of a change of citizenship made before an amended bill was filed." A dismissal of the bill as to parties not indispensable to the suit, or an amendment dropping them, may cure a defect of jurisdiction," even, it was held, where they were restored a few days later upon their petition for intervention.34 31 § 20. Under grants of different States.-Where there is a controversy between citizens of the same State claiming land under grants of different States, it seems that the Circuit Court of the United States has jurisdiction irrespective of the amount involved. Where one party claimed land under a grant of 27 Briggs v. French, 2 Sumn. 251, 255, 256; Catlett v. Pacific Ins. Co., 1 Paine, 594; Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash. C. C. 546, 553; Case v. Clarke, 5 Mason, 70; Robertson v. Carson, 19 Wall. 94, 106. 28 Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315; Ala. G. S. R. Co. v. Carroll (C. C. A.), 84 Fed. R. 772; Kingman v. Holthaus, 59 Fed. R. 305; King v. U. S., 59 Fed. R. 9; Chambers v. Prince, 75 Fed. R. 176; Allen v. So. Cal. Ry. Co., 70 Fed. R. 370. An intention to return unaccompanied by acts does not restore the former residence after it has been actually changed. Pacific M. L. I. Co. v. Tompkins (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R. 539. 31 Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U. S. 199, 206; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61, 64; Phelps v. Oakes, 117 U. S. 236; Hardenbergh v. Ray, 151 U. S. 112. But see Weaver v. Kelly, 92 Fed. R. 417; Mangels v. Donau B. Co., 53 Fed. R. 513. 32 Tug River C. & S. Co. v. Brigel, 86 Fed. R. 818. 33 Powers v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 169 U. S. 92; Sioux City T. R. & W. Co. v. Trust Co. of N. Am., 82 Fed. R. 124; Hopkins v. Oxley S. Co., 83 Fed. R. 912; Oxley S. Co. v. Coopers' Int. Union, 72 Fed. R. 695; Tug River C. & S. Co. v. Brigel, 86 Fed. R. 818; supra, § 18; infra, § 391. 34 Sioux City T. & W. Co. v. Trust 29 Lehigh Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, Co. of N. Am. (C. C. A.), 82 Fed. R. 160 U. S. 327. 30 Foster v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 56 Fed. R. 434; Sheppard v. Graves, 56 Fed. R. 437; Nat. M. Acc. Ass'n v. Sparks (C. C. A.), 83 Fed. R. 225. 124. § 20. See Holt on Concurrent Jurisdiction, § 60; In re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653, 659, 660; In re Keasby & Mattison Co., 160 U. S. 221, 230. |