32 nor when a citizen of the same State as that of the opposite party is on the same side of the controversy as an alien; even if the controversy is separable; 33 nor can they obtain jurisdiction when a State and an alien are parties.34 § 46. Determination of citizenship of natural persons. A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the State in which he permanently resides and has his domicile. A man may be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of any State and consequently have no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts because of difference of citizenship. It has been so held when he changes his residence to a foreign country 3 or when he becomes a nomad. The exercise of the right of suffrage by a citizen of the United States is conclusive evidence of his citizenship.5 It has been held, that voting in a party primary, and membership in a local political committee, are not conclusive evidence of citizenship. The acts of town officers in registering à man voter and assessing a poll tax against him are evidence of as a 27 L. ed. 60. 340 Conor v. Texas, 202 U. S. 501, 50 L. ed. 1120; affirming State v. O'Connor, 73 S. S. 1041, 96 Tex. 484; New Jersey v. Babcock, Fed. Cas. No. 10,103 (4 Wash. 344). $46. 1 Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How ard, 163, 12 L. ed. 387; Reynolds v. Adden, 136 U. S. 348, 34 L. ed. 360; Kemna v. Brockhaus, 5 Fed. 762; Winn v. Gilmer, 27 Fed. 817; McDonald v. Salem Capital Flour Mills Co., 31 Fed. 577, 12 Sawyer, 492; Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash. 546; Lessee of Butler v. Farns worth, 4 Wash. 101, Abb. (U. S.) 211; Burnham V. Rangeley, 1 Woodb. & M. 7. 2 Hammerstein v. Lyne, 200 Fed. 165, 172; Hough v. Societe Electrique Westinghouse de Russie et al., 231 Fed. 341; Stein v. Fleischmann Co., 237 Fed. 679. See supra, § 40. 8 Ibid. 4 Pannill v. Roanoke Times Co., 252 Fed. 910. 5 Rabaud v. D'Wolf, 1 Paine, 580; Sanger v. Seymour, 25 Fed. 289; State Sav. Ass'n v. Howard, 31 Fed. 433; McDonald v. Salem C. F. Mills Co. 31 Fed. 577; Caldwell v. Firth, C. C. A., 91 Fed. 177; Laws v. Fleming, 177 Fed. 450; Thompson v. Ward, 199 Fed. 861. 6 Gaddie v. Mann, 147 Fed. 955. his domicile but not conclusive.7 Voting is not indispensable to establish citizenship.8 Domicile within a State by a citizen of the United States is usually considered to be conclusive evidence of his citizenship thereof. It has been held, that residence alone, which is not shown to be permanent, is not conclusive of citizenship,10 but 7 Re Sedgwick, 223 Fed. 655. 8 Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 Howard, 163, 185, 12 L. ed. 387, 397; Marks v. Marks, 75 Fed. 321. 9 Gilbert v. David, 235 U. S. 561; Harding v. Standard Oil Co., C. C. A., 182 Fed. 421; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Petrowsky, C. C. A., 250 Fed. 584; Bjornquist v. Boston & A. R. Co., C. C. A., 250 Fed. 929. But see Pennill v. Roanoke Times Co.; Jerrick v. Same, 252 Fed. 910. 10 Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. (C. S.), 163, 185, 12 L. ed. 387, 397; Lessee of Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Wash. 101, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 211; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Ohle, 117 U. S. 123, 29 L. ed. 837; Reynolds v. Adden, 136 U. S. 348, 352, 34 L. ed. 360, 361; Kenna v. Brockhaus, 5 Fed. 762; Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. 650; Sanger v. Seymour, 25 Fed. 289; McDonald v. Salem Capital Flour-Mills Co., 31 Fed. 577, 12 Sawyer, 492; Rivers v. Bradley, 53 Fed. 305; Chiatovich v. Hanchett, 78 Fed. 193; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Carroll, C. C. A., 84 Fed. 772, 28 C. C. A. 207; Caldwell v. Firth, C. C. A., 91 Fed. 177; Nichols v. Nichols, 92 Fed. 1; Blair v. Silver Peak Mines, 93 Fed. 332; denying rehearing 84 Fed. 737; Hanchett v. Blair, 100 Fed. 817, 41 C. C. A. 76; Willingham v. Swift & Co., 165 Fed. 223; Harding v. Standard Oil Co., 182 Fed. 421; Sherman v. Southern Pac. Co., 192 Fed. 711; Illinois Life Ins. Co. v. Shennehon, 109 Fed. 674, where the party had no dwelling in the State of which she was held to be a citi zen; but had stored her furniture therein, while she was absent to attend to litigation in another State, where she owned property and had lived before her marriage to her deceased husband; Adams v. Shirk, 117 Fed. 801, 55 C. C. A. 25, (payment of the dues of a resident member in two clubs, at one of which the party had a room, accompanied by the maintenance of an office in the same city, the party's wife being absent from both States, insufficient to constitute a. change); Corel v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry Co., 123 Fed. 452, (filing a homestead claim, and the construction of a house on the land where another family lived, accompanied by sev eral visits to the Territory, remaining as long as two months there at one time, is insufficient); Pond v.: Vermont Valley R. Co., 12 Blatchf. 280, 293. In Harton v. Howley, 155 Fed. 491, a married man had left his wife and child in a house built by his wife, in one State, where he usually spent Sunday, paid taxes and voted when he last exercised the right of suffrage; it was Held, that he had not changed citizenship therefrom; although for two years he had been engaged in business in another State and lived there, occupying a room in a hotel throughout the week and testified that he was a resident of the latter State. In Laws v. Fleming, 177 when proved, is prima facie evidence thereof.11 Where it was Fed. 450, 453, the deposition of the plaintiff in another suit in a State court, where, in answer to the question “When did you first make Fairmont your home?" he had replied, "About the first of the year;" was not conclusive against his affidavit that he was a registered voter, paid a poll-tax, and had a furnished house temporarily closed in another State, but that because of his connection with the building of a railroad he had temporarily resided in Fairmont with no intention of establishing his business there. In Thompson v. Ward, 199 Fed. 861, 863, the defendant was served within the State and his wife then stated that they intended to move to another State. He did not, when served, make any statement concerning his residence, but subequently filed an affidavit making a general statement that he resided and was a citizen of another State others, residents of another made affidavits that he had Two State, moved State that his household goods from the where he was served prior to the commencement of the suit and he was not a citizen of Iowa, but that his headquarters had been in the other State until recently, he had been transferred to then Massachusetts accepted employment in West Virginia for no particular time. He lived there for about a year writing letters which showed that he considered the removal as more or less of an experiment. He never took his household goods there. It was Held that he had not changed his citizenship. In Sullivan v. Lloyd, 213 Fed. 275, defendant, who was not married and had no family, in order to avoid a suit by the plaintiff for breach of promise left his residence in Massachusetts had returned to Illinois where he was born and formerly lived. He intended in good faith to change his citizenship to Illinois and testified that he had come back there for good." Before leaving, he gave directions to give up the apartment he had been occupying, to remove his furniture and store it in Rhode Island.. This was done, the apartments were sublet and he did not return to them. He conveyed a printing business which he had been operating in Massachusetts to trustees from whom he had been receiving an income from another source and the plant was sold after the suit was brought. He remained in Illinois as a visitor at his brother's house with no residence or place of business there which he could call his own nine days before the suit was brought. It was Held that he had not become a citizen of Illinois. In Simpson v. Phillipsdale Paper Mills Co., 223 Fed. 64, a bachelor gave up his holdings in Massachusetts and moved his personal belongings to Rhode Island where he engaged lodging for the purpose of changing his citizenship so that he might a Massachusetts company in another place in the same State, he was now temporarily loIt was proved that, at the general election, he had voted where cated. last in the Hela cient State where he was served. that the evidence was insuffito show that he was a citizen In Davis v. of any other State. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. Fed. an was brought for a personal to plaintiff's wife in West action injury Virginia. Plaintiff when a citizen of Fed. Prac. Vol. I-11 sue found that plaintiff "is and was a resident of the State of Mis the Federal Courts. He spent It 11 Kenna v. Brockhaus, 5 Fed. 762; Eisele v. Oddie, 128 Fed. 941. In Giflert v. David, 235 U. S. 561, plaintiff, with his family removed from Michigan to Connecticut, where he had inherited property which he wished to sell should he be able to obtain what he thought it was worth and was engaged in litigation. He occupied a house which he owned in Connecticut. He left his desk with his brother-in-law in Michigan which he said was for the purposes of "holding his residence there." He told several people that he intended to live in Michigan and expressed his preference to that State, as a residence. He continued to pay membership dues to orders in Michigan to which he belonged. For ten years he was absent from Michigan except for a short time for a tem porary purpose. He took a letter from his church in Michigan to a church in Connecticut. He sold his residence in Michigan and a sissippi at the day of bringing this suit," it was held that this established that he was a citizen and resident of the State.12 But it was held in another case that a stipulation at the opening of the trial that plaintiff was a resident of a State other than that of which defendants were citizens was insufficient to establish the diversity of citizenship.13 Absence at school 14 or in a prison 15 or on duty in the army,16 is insufficient to constitute a change of citizenship. It has been held: that the acceptance and discharge of the duties of receiver of a railroad, within a State, does not constitute a change of citizenship.17 A State statute, providing that a non-resident cannot act as an administrator, does not make an administrator appointed therein a citizen of the State; but the jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States is determined by his actual citizenship, notwithstanding his appointment.18 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; 19 but does not estop him from proving the contrary.20 rett v. Mallard, C. C. A., 238 Fed. 335. 12 Reichman v. Harris, C. C. A., 252 Fed. 371. 13 Hogg v. Maxwell, C. C. A., 215 Fed. 360. 14 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Ohle, 117 U. S. 123. 15 Guarantee, Co. of North America v. First Nat. Bank (Virginia), 28 S. E. 909, absence while in a peniteniary is insufficient. 16 Stoker v. Leavenworth, 7 La. O. S. 390, holding that army offi cers, stationed on duty in a state, did not become citizens there. 17 Brisenden v. Chamberlain, 53 Fed. 307. 18 McDuffie v. Montgomery, 128 Fed. 105. 19 Rucker v. Bolles, C. C. A., 80 Fed. 504. 20 Reynolds v. Adden, 136 U. S. |