Thus, one Gilmer, then a citizen of Alabama, had a suit in the State Courts of that State against the members of the firm of Josiah Morris & Co. They also were citizens of Alabama. He lost his case. The decision below was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State on the 27th of January, 1886. Shortly thereafter he went to Tennessee. In the following September, he brought suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama against the same defendants; alleging that he was a citizen of Tennessee. In May or June, 1887, he came back to Montgomery, Alabama, with the intent to reside there permanently. There were other facts shown which satisfied the Supreme Court that he had gone to Tennessee for no other purpose than that of bringing the suit, intending to return to Alabama so soon as he could without imperilling his standing as a plaintiff in the United States Court. The Court held that upon the evidence it could "not resist the conviction that the plaintiff had no purpose to acquire a domicile or settled home in Tennessee, and that his sole object in removing to that State was to place himself in a situation to invoke the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States. He went to Tennessee without any present intention to remain there permanently or for an indefinite time, but with a present intention to return to Alabama as soon as he could do so without defeating the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to determine his new suit. He was, therefore, a mere sojourner in the former State when his suit was brought." His case was within the rule that "if the removal be for the purpose of committing a fraud upon the law and to enable the party to avail himself of the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts and that fact be made out by his acts, the Court must pronounce that his removal was not with the bona fide intention of changing his domicile, however frequent and public his declarations to the contrary may have been."1 204. Motive for Change of Domicile Immaterial.—— There is a distinction here which must not be lost sight of. 'Morris vs. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315. If the change of residence and domicile is actually made, the motive or combination of motives inducing the party to make it is not material. It may be that he has moved from one State to another for the purpose of qualifying himself to bring his case in the Federal Court. If the removal was with the bona fide intention of taking up his permanent domicile in the new State he, so soon as he arrives there, becomes a citizen of it; and his right to sue is a "legitimate, constitutional and legal consequence not to be impeached by the motive of his removal."1 205. A State is Not a Citizen.-It would seem from the nature of the case, as well as from the language of the Constitution and of the Judiciary Act, to be sufficiently plain that a State is not a citizen within the meaning here intended. The Supreme Court had, however, to decide the point. The State of Alabama brought suit against the Postal Cable and Telegraph Co. for taxes alleged to be due by it. There was the necessary jurisdictional amount involved. The defendant removed the case to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama, where the State won its suit, recovering judgment for nearly $4,000. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The latter held that, as the State was not a citizen, the case was improperly removed into the Federal Court. It reversed the judgment, and remanded the cause to the Circuit Court with instructions to send it back to the State Court. It imposed the costs, both in the Circuit and the Supreme Courts, on the Telegraph Company because it had improperly removed the suit.1 This case illustrates the vigor with which the Supreme Court represses any attempt to extend the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States beyond the limits fixed by the statutes. Apparently both parties were willing that the case should be finally disposed of in the Federal Courts. The Supreme Court none the less held that they had no jurisdiction. 1 Briggs vs. French, 4 Fed. Cases, 117. 1 Postal Telegraph Cable Co. vs. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482. 206. Diverse Citizenship Does Not Exist Unless Every Plaintiff is of Different Citizenship From Any Defendant. One of the most interesting, as well as practically important, questions in the law of jurisdiction as dependent upon diverse citizenship, is as to the status of corporations. It is impossible to understand the history of the law in this connection, without bearing in mind that the Supreme Court early held that diverse citizenship does not exist unless every plaintiff is a citizen of a different State from that of any defendant, or, as the same rule is otherwise expressed, jurisdiction on the ground of diverse citizenship cannot be sustained unless every plaintiff is entitled to sue every defendant.1 It is sufficient here to state the rule. It will be more fully discussed later. 207. Citizenship of Corporations.-Corporations are continually suing and being sued in the United States Courts. In many cases, the only ground of jurisdiction is the diversity of citizenship, yet, from many important standpoints, corporations are not citizens. How is it, that if they are not, the Federal Courts, on the ground of diverse citizenship, take jurisdiction of suits by or against them? The explanation requires the telling of a somewhat long story. 208. Federal Jurisdiction Because of Diversity of Citizenship in Suits to Which Corporations Are a Party Based on Legal Fiction.—It has been said that with one exception Federal Courts have never extended their jurisdiction by resort to a legal fiction, although in other countries, and at other times, such fictions were habitually used to such an end. We come now to that exception. 209. The Genesis of this Modern Fiction.-For some fifteen years or thereabouts after the adoption of the Constitution, it appears to have been assumed that the corporations of a particular State were citizens of it within the meaning of the Third Article of the Constitution. As 1 Strawbridge vs. Curtiss, 3 Cranch, 267. such they sued or were sued in the Federal Courts. The cases were heard and decided without any question of jurisdiction being raised. In 1805, however, the State of Georgia attempted to tax the Savannah branch of the bank of the United States. The bank said that it was not liable to State taxation, and refused to pay the taxes levied upon it. The Georgia officials thereupon seized $2,000 of its money, and it sued for trespass. In its declaration, it said it was a citizen of Pennsylvania and the defendants were citizens of Georgia. The defendants pleaded in abatement that the president, directors and company of the Bank of the United States averred themselves to be a body politic and corporate and that in that capacity they could not sue or be sued, plead or be impleaded, in that Court by anything contained in the Constitution and laws of the United States. To this plea the plaintiff demurred. The Circuit Court held the plea good. The bank took a writ of error to the Supreme Court. In an elaborate opinion CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL said: "That invisible, intangible and artificial being, that mere legal entity, a corporation aggregate, is certainly not a citizen; and consequently cannot sue or be sued in the Courts of the United States, unless the rights of the members in this respect can be exercised in their corporate name." The Court held, however, that for such purposes the Courts will disregard the separate existence of the corporation and will look to see who actually compose it, and that if its members be all citizens of one State, it acting for them, may maintain an action in the Courts of the United States against citizens of another State. The Court said that when the plaintiff described itself as a citizen of Pennsylvania it was tantamount to an averment that those who composed it were citizens of Pennsylvania. The plea of the defendants in abatement was therefore held bad.1 210. Presumption of Identical Citizenship of Corporation and Stockholders Held Rebuttable.-In 1839 certain citizens of Louisiana sued the president, directors and 1 Bank of the United States vs. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61. company of the Commercial and Railroad Bank of Vicksburg, citizens of Mississippi, incorporated by its legislature. The defendant pleaded, in abatement, that it was a corporation aggregate, and that the incorporators and stockholders of the company were citizens of other and different States, to wit, that Wm. F. Lambeth and Wm. E. Thompson were citizens of the State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs demurred to the plea. The Court below sustained the demurrer. On appeal the Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule that where there are two or more joint plaintiffs and two or more joint defendants, each of the plaintiffs must be capable of suing each of the defendants in the Courts of the United States, if those Courts are to have jurisdiction on the ground of diverse citizenship. Upon the same principle, it was held that all the incorporators must be citizens of a different State from that of the party sued if the corporation aggregate be the plaintiff, or from that of the party suing where it is the defendant. The plea was held good, and the judgment of the Court below reversed.1 211. Corporations May Be Treated as Citizens.— At the January Term, 1844, the question again came before the Supreme Court. This time suit was brought by a citizen of New York against the Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston Railway Co., a corporation of the State of South Carolina. The defendant pleaded that the Court ought not to have or take further cognizance of the action because some of the members of the corporation were not citizens of South Carolina, but were citizens of North Carolina; that the Bank of Charleston, a body corporate, was one of the members of the defendant corporation, and that some of the stockholders of the bank were citizens of New York-that is citizens of the same State as the plaintiff. To this plea the defendants demurred. The demurrer was sustained. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. By a unanimous decision 60. 1 Commercial & Railroad Bank of Vicksburg vs. Slocomb, 14 Peters, |