217. Municipal Corporations Treated as Citizens of Their State.-Municipal corporations chartered by a State are, for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the United States Courts, held to be composed solely of its citizens; where the amount in controversy is sufficient, they may be sued in the United States Courts by a citizen of another State.1 218. Controversies Between Citizens of States and Foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.—In addition to conferring jurisdiction upon the District Courts of civil suits at law or in equity in which the matter in controversy exceeds $3,000, the first paragraph of section 24 of the Judicial Code gives jurisdiction to those Courts over such suits when they are between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens or subjects. 219. Place of Actual Residence of Alien Immaterial. -If one of the parties to the controversy is a citizen or subject of a foreign power, the place of his actual residence is immaterial. Many years ago two citizens of the Republic of Switzerland, residing and trading in the City of New Orleans, brought suit against certain citizens of Louisiana in the District Court of the United States for that district. It was objected that the United States Court had no jurisdiction because the plaintiffs, though aliens, were residents of Louisiana. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL said: "The residence of aliens within the State constitutes no objection to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts.”1 220. No Length of Residence Will in Itself Turn an Alien Into a Citizen.-A foreign citizen or subject remains an alien until he has been completely naturalized by the granting of his final papers. A native born subject of the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg immigrated to the United States many years before the case arose. Shortly after his arrival he declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States-that is to say, in common phrase, he took out his first papers. For fifteen years thereafter he resided in Minnesota, and, as its Constitution authorized, had frequently voted at its elections. Under that Constitution he was eligible to State office. He sued a citizen of Minnesota. It was objected that the United States Court was without jurisdiction. MR. JUSTICE MILLER, then on Circuit, said: "The plaintiff is undoubtedly a subject of the Grand Duke of Mecklenburg, having been born such, unless something has been done since his coming to this country to change that relation. It will hardly be contended that length of residence, even with the intention never to return, can have that effect, nor can the incomplete movement towards naturalization under the laws of the United States. The moving counsel then must rely on the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and the action of plaintiff under it to change his citizenship. I am of opinion that no State can make the subject of a foreign prince a citizen of the State in any other mode than that provided by the naturalization laws of Congress.” *** “But I do not place the decision of the present case on that ground. The State of Minnesota has not attempted to make the plaintiff a citizen of that State, nor do the provisions of her Constitution when applied to the condition of the plaintiff have that effect. The error has arisen from the same confusion of ideas which induced the advocates of female suffrage to assert in the Supreme Court the right of women to vote. That assertion is based upon the proposition that citizenship and the right to vote are inseparable. Therefore, females who are citizens must be allowed to vote. This was unanimously overruled by this Court. The present case is based upon the same idea." 221. All Stockholders of a Foreign Corporation Conclusively Presumed Aliens.-The same legal fiction is applied to foreign as to domestic corporations. Lanz vs. Randall, 4 Dillon, 425; 14 Fed. Cases, 1131. All the stockholders of a corporation chartered by a foreign country are conclusively presumed to be citizens or subjects. thereof. The United States Court has jurisdiction of suits brought by citizens of any State against a corporation chartered by a foreign country and of suits by such corporation against a citizen of any of the States, provided the proper jurisdictional amount be involved. Such suits are controversies between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens or subjects.1 222. Foreign State or Sovereign May Sue in Federal Courts. Both the Constitution and the Judicial Code authorize a foreign State to sue in the Courts of the United States. In the harbor of San Francisco in December, 1867, the American ship Sapphire collided with a French transport. Two days later, in the District Court of the United States, a libel against the Sapphire was filed in the name of Napoleon III, Emperor of the French, as the owner of the transport. A decree was entered in favor of the Emperor for $15,000. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. While the case was there pending Napoleon was deposed. A Republic was established and recognized by the United States. The Supreme Court said:— "A foreign sovereign as well as any other foreign person who has a demand of a civil nature against any person here may prosecute it in our Courts." *** “The reigning sovereign represents the national sovereignty, and that sovereignty is continuous and perpetual, residing in the proper successors of the sovereign for the time being. Napoleon was the owner of the transport, "not as an individual, but as sovereign of France." *** "On his deposition the sovereignty does not change, but merely the person or persons in whom it resides. The foreign State is the true and real owner of its public vessels of war."1 1 Steamship Co. vs. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118. The Sapphire, 11 Wall. 164. The case cited was a libel in admiralty. The jurisdiction did not, of course, depend upon the first paragraph of section 24 of the Judicial Code, which we have been particularly considering, but the principles there laid down are applicable to cases brought thereunder. It was under it the Republic of Columbia filed a bill of complaint in the Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia against the Cauca Company to set aside an award under a submission made by that Republic and the defendant company.2 223. Record Must Show Alienage.-In cases brought under this clause of the statute the record must clearly show that the alien is a citizen or subject of a foreign power; precisely as in cases in which the ground of jurisdiction is the diverse State citizenship of the parties, the citizenship of every party must be clearly stated. 224. Every Plaintiff Must Be of Diverse Citizenship From Any Defendant.-As already stated, in order that there shall be jurisdiction in the Federal Courts on the ground of diversity of citizenship, each plaintiff must be capable of suing each of the defendants in the Courts of the United States. More than a century ago the Supreme Court so ruled.1 Nearly forty years afterwards JUSTICE WAYNE, speaking for the Court, said that CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL regretted having ever made the decision. It remains, however, the unquestioned law. It is one of the cardinal principles governing the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts and must be kept steadily in mind by every practitioner in them. It has been constantly applied, and, at times, with what must have seemed to disappointed litigants, remorseless logic. A citizen of the State of Kentucky and a citizen of the Mississippi territory united, as plaintiffs, in a suit in the District Court of the United States for the District of 2 Columbia vs. Cauca Co., 190 U. S. 524. Louisiana, against a Louisiana corporation. It was held that the Court had no jurisdiction because a citizen of a territory is not a citizen of a State. The Court said: "it has been doubted whether the parties might elect to sue jointly or severally. However this may be, having elected to sue jointly, the Court is incapable of distinguishing their case so far as respects jurisdiction from one in which they were compeiled to unite."2 Wherever any party to a case is incapable of suing in the Federal Court any party on the opposite side, the Court is without jurisdiction. If the suit is brought by a person or persons who, or each of whom, is capable of suing all the defendants, and it appears that there is an indispensable party who has been omitted, then the case fails because of his cmission. If his citizenship is such that if he were joined the Court would not have jurisdiction, and it is attempted to join him by amendment, the case will also fail, because it will then be manifest that the Court is without jurisdiction. 3 In the case last cited, the bill was filed originally in the Supreme Court of the United States by the State of Cali fornia against the Southern Pacific Co., a corporation of Kentucky. The issues involved in the litigation, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, affected the rights of the City of Oakland and the Oakland Water Front Co. The Court held that it ought not to proceed in their absence. If they were brought in, then the suit would be between the State of California on the one side and a citizen of another State and citizens of California on the other, and the Federal Courts would not have jurisdiction. 225. Parties Not Indispensable Need Not Be Joined. -If any person whose presence upon the record would destroy jurisdiction, is not an indispensable party, he need not be joined and jurisdiction may be maintained. Corporation of New Orleans vs. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91. |