STATE SAVINGS ASS'N STATE SAVINGS ASS'N
(Oilrcuit Oourt, E. D. Mi880uri. June 8, 1887.)
Dou.jftai8 for plaintiff. ,E. S. MetcalJ, for defendant.
'Plea in abatement.
THAYER, J.,(orally.), In the case of the State Savings Association agains,tW .C. Howard; the point in controversy is as to the residence of the'ddfendantHoward on ,the seventh of May, 1884, when the ,suit'was oroogliC' 'rrhe defendantclahnB to have been a resident of the state of Missouri on that day, and, inMmuchas the ,plaintiff' in the case' is a Missouri corporation, he insists that this court has no jurisdiction. On the other hand, the plaintiff contends that the defendant, on the seventh of May, 1884, was a resident of the state of Texas. The facts are that Howard1Yas a Qfthe ,fltate ,of Texas, and was E:)ngaged in the in that state, and in various other entt'rprises, from the hotel year 1877 up to the spring .of the year 1884. In February and March, 1884, he came to this city on one or two occasions, with a view of purchasing an interest in the Lindell Hotel. He finally succeeded in purCh8.slng ,R controlling iliterest in the stock, and was eleccedpresident of that hotel ¥sudation. Subsequently, on Nlefifteenth day of April, 1884, he came ht're from Texas with a gentleman whom he had appointed to be manager of the hotel, and remained here until about the fifteenth of May following,at which time he returned to the state of Texas, and has continued to reside there ever since; has abandoned the hotel enterprise in this city, and, so far as the evidence shows, never came hack to this city after his return to Texas, on or about the fifteenth of May, 1884. Undoubtedly, the defendant might have become a citizen of the state of Missouri by residing in the state from April 15th until May 7th, but that would involve an abandonment of his former residence in the state of Texas, inasmuch as a man cannot be at the same time a citizen of two different states: but in view of the fact that defendant onlvresided here for about a mo'nth, and then went hack to Texas, it should be made to appear very clearly that he came here on April 15, 1884, with the intention of taking up his permanent abode in this city from that date, and that heat the same time abandoned his residence in the state of Tens; The proof in this case is not sufficient to satisfy me that he at any time abandoned his residence in the state of Texas. It shows, on the v.31F.no.8-28
434 contrary, that he never removed his family to this state, or any of his household effects. It furthermore appears that he continued to be engaged in the hotel business at Dallas, in the state of Texas, after the fifteenth day of April, 1884, as well,as before, and that he was also interested in other business enterprises in Texas during the whole period of , his stay in Missouri. My impression from the testimcmyis that on the fifteenth of April, 1884, he 'did not come to tbis city with the intention of taking up his permanent abode in this state at that date. I have no doubt that he came here on that occasion for the purpose of puttillg the hotel enterprise into shape, but with the intention of returning to Texas" and permanently removing to this state, with his family, some time later ip: the season of 1884. There is testimony in'the case to the effect that he declarations that he would remove his family to the city of St. Louis, all.dtake up his abode here, later in. the sea!\on. Iaccordingly hold that on the seventh of May, 1884,he was a citizen of the state of TexaS, and not a: ,citizen of the state <;>f Missouri.. The result is, there will be a judgment in favor of the, plaintiff,the StawSavings Association, on the plea in abatement. '
· 'j';.: ,
WoontAND and Wife,v.NEwHALLS' ADM':g and. otllers.
(az'rouit aOU'l't. W. D. Virlft'nia. 1887.);
Where a suit to recover a sum of money, claimed as It legacy, hf!,s, been dismissed on general demurrer, it cannot be pleaded in estoppel to a'Jjlllby the samellarty for· the same s'um,clahned under a trust, especial\'y whete new dec fendants are joined, and .the repord entry dismissing. the suit specifies as grounds therefor only "reasons apvearing to the cot:lrt.." 1 ' All agreements, contracts, trusts,: and instrumentst'o which a slave is a patty ",re null and .'Void. If not emancipated, it matters not whate1Iorts ha"e been made for freedom, or what privileges are enjoyed.
. ,'. ... ,: ' , " , .
SAME-ABOL1TION OF SLAVERY.'
, Slavery was abolished in Virginia by the Alexandria constitution,'adopted April 7, 1864. :
If two persons, for a valuable consideration as betweeJ;t themselves,eov.
CONTRACT-lrOR BENEFIT OF THmnFERsON.
enant to. do something for the benefit of a third person, who is a stranger to the consideration. the latter,cannot enforce the covenant.1 "
In Equity. Edm'UndB &; Lwi.8, for plaintiffs. ,Kean &; Kea'f/o, for defendants.
tbe effect of a judgment of dismissal, not on the merfill. 1166 Kirkpatrick v. McElroy, (N. J.) 7 Atl. Rep. 647, and Walker v. Wise, (Ga.) 2 S. E. Rep. 749, and note. IRespecting the enforcement of contracts in actions by tbirdparties, see Wright v. Terry, (Fla.) 2 South. Rep.G, and pote. .