one of the parties may be a citizen of a particular State. By the time the suit is brought, he may be a citizen of another. Before judgment is rendered, he may move again and become a citizen of a third, or after suit brought one of the parties may die and his executor or administrator may be a citizen of a State other than his. At what time must the parties be citizens of different States in order to give the Federal Courts jurisdiction? The only time of importance is that at which the suit is brought. It matters not of what State the parties were citizens when the contract was made or the tort committed, or of what State they become citizens after the suit is instituted. If they are citizens of different States at the time of the institution of the action, the Federal Court has jurisdiction, and, once properly taken, no subsequent change of citizenship or of parties may oust it.

Citizens of Ohio brought suit in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky against citizens of Kentucky. Before decree, one of the complainants removed from Ohio and became a citizen of Kentucky. The Supreme Court held that change of residence did not divest the jurisdiction.1

233. Citizenship at Time of Bringing Original and Not Ancillary or Supplemental Suit Controls.— In the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Rhode Island, a citizen of Connecticut filed a bill in equity against certain citizens of Rhode Island. During the pendency of the proceeding, he died, and a Rhode Island administrator for his estate was appointed: The latter filed a bill of revivor. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction on the ground that both the parties to the new bill were citizens of Rhode Island. The Supreme Court said:

:

"We are of opinion that the Court erred. The bill of revivor was in no just sense an original suit, but was a mere continuation of the original suit. The parties to the original bill were citizens of different States and the

'Morgan's Heirs vs. Morgan, 2 Wheat. 297.

jurisdiction of the Court completely attached to the controversy. Having so attached, it could not be divested by any subsequent events."1

Citizens of Pennsylvania brought an action of ejectment in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri against the tenant in possession, a citizen of Missouri. Under a State statute the landlord of the defendant, who was a citizen of Pennsylvania, applied to be admitted as a co-defendant. The permission was granted. The defendants then moved to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction because there were citizens of Pennsylvania on each side of the record. The Supreme Court said:

"It was quite proper" *** "for the Circuit Court to admit the landlord as a party for the purpose of defending his tenant's possession and through that, his own title; and to this end he might not only be permitted to appear as a party to the record and co-defendant, but to control the defense as dominus litis, raising and conducting such issues as his own rights and interests might dictate. And this need not arrest or interfere with the jurisdiction of the Court, already established by the plaintiffs against the tenant in possession. For such proceedings should be treated as incidental to the jurisdic tion thus acquired and auxiliary to it."2

1 Clarke vs. Mathewson, 12 Peters, 171. Phelps vs. Oaks, 117 U. S. 240.

CHAPTER IX.

VENUE OF ACTIONS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.

234. Consideration of the Provisions of Paragraph 1, Section 24, of Judicial Code Limiting Jurisdiction of Suits By Assignees Postponed.-The paragraph so long under discussion contains another provision of much practical importance. By it the jurisdiction of the District Courts over suits brought by assignees is greatly limited. The Court is forbidden to take jurisdiction of a suit upon a chose in action unless such suit could have been prosecuted in such Court, had no assignment been made.

We shall hereafter see that by a construction put upon this provision by some authorities, no assignee can sue in any particular District Court unless suit could have been there brought had no assignment been made.

It will tend to clearness, therefore, if we first inquire in what District Court or Courts a plaintiff is required to bring his suit.

235. In What District or Districts a Plaintiff May Sue Statutory Rules.-The United States is a very large country. It has many Federal judicial districts. If a plaintiff might sue a defendant in any of them he chose, he would have an instrument of oppression ready to his hands. Congress has been careful to prevent any such abuse. When the original Judiciary Act was passed, and for many years afterwards, arrest of the person was a common method of beginning many civil suits. The 11th section of the original Judiciary Act provided that

"no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another, in any civil action, *** and no civil suit shall be brought *** against an inhabitant of the United States, by any original process in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ."

By the Act of March 3, 1887, the possible venue of civil actions in the Federal Courts was still further limited. The provision then made is substantially reproduced in section 51 of the Judicial Code, which declares that, with certain exceptions, to be hereafter alluded to

"no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in
another in any civil action before a District Court," and
that (1) "no civil suit shall be brought in any District
Court against any person by any original process or
proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is
an inhabitant," (2) "but where the jurisdiction is
founded only on the fact that the action is between citi-
zens of different States, suit shall be brought only in the
district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the
defendant."

236. Statutory Rules as to Venue Not Applicable
to Suits Against Aliens.-In section 11 of the original
Judiciary Act, the provisions protecting defendants from
being sued except in particular districts were expressly lim-
ited to "inhabitants of the United States." In subsequent
revisions and changes those words have been omitted, but the
Courts have held that such omission was not intended to
change the meaning. To hold otherwise would be to decide
that Congress had in effect directed that many aliens should
not be suable at all in the Courts of the United States.
In the language of the Supreme Court,

"to construe the provision as applicable to all suits
between a citizen and an alien would leave the Courts of
the United States open to aliens against citizens, and
close them to citizens against aliens. Such a construc-
tion is not required by the language of the provision, and
would be inconsistent with the general intent of the
section as a whole."

237. Aliens and Alien Corporations Suable in Any Federal District in Which Service Can Be Had.One Michael Kane, a resident of New Jersey, was a passenger on the Devonia, belonging to the Barrow Steamship Co., a British corporation. When in the port of London

In re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 660.

derry, Ireland, and while on the ship, he was assailed and beaten by one of its officers. He brought suit against the Company in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York and had the summons served on its duly appointed agents in New York, where it had property. The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction; the action was for a personal tort committed abroad, such as would have been actionable if comImitted in the State of New York or elsewhere in this country, and an action for which might be maintained in any Circuit Court of the United States which acquired jurisdiction of the defendant. The action was within the general jurisdiction conferred by Congress upon the Circuit Courts of the United States.1

238. Rule I-If Jurisdiction Exists on Any Ground Other Than Diversity of State Citizenship, Suit Can Be Brought Only in the District of Defendant's Residence. -It will be perceived that where the ground of jurisdiction is anything other than that the action is between citizens of different States, there is only one district in which the suit can be brought, viz: the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant. Where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different States, suit may be brought in the district in which either the plaintiff or the defendant resides. What will happen if the plaintiff, a citizen of one State, sues the defendant, a citizen of another, in the district of the residence of the plaintiff upon a cause of action arising under a Federal law?

Certain citizens of Georgia filed a bill in equity against the Atlantic Coast Line and a number of other railroad companies, all of which did business in Georgia, but were incorporated under the laws of other States. The suit was brought in the district of the residence of the plaintiffs. Diverse citizenship existed between them and defendants, but the object of the bill was to assert rights under the Interstate

1 Barrow Steamship Co. vs. Kane, 170 U. S. 100.