ARGUED AND DETERMINED
DENTON .". INTERNATIONAL CO. OF MEXICO.
(Oirouit OOU'l't, 8.
Underact Congo March 3, 1887, providing that the United States 'circuit courts shall have original cognizance of a controversy between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects. but that no civil suit shall be brought before such courts except in the district whereof the defendant is an inhabitjlnt, a citizen of Mexico cannot sue a Connecticut corporation in the United States circuit court for the SOllthern district of California, althe corporation has an office and In that district.
to defendant's preliminary answer in the nature of a plea in abatement.
On motion to quash service of summons, and on demurrer:
'Stephen M. White, Ger;rrge J. Denis, and Max Loewenthal, for plaintiff, cited Ha1'old v. Mining Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 529. GeO'l'geJiluller, for defendant.
Defendant is an inhabitant of the state of Connecticut, and not of the state of California. Rail1'oad Co. v.Koontz, 104 U. 8.'5; St. Clair v. Cow, 106 U. S. 350.1 Sup. Ct. Hep. 354; Rail1'oad Co. v. Alabama, 107 U. S. 581,2 Sup. Ct. 432; Insurance Co v. Woodw01'th. 111 U. S. 138,4 SUI>' Ct. Rep. 364; U. S. v. Telephone Co .. 29 Fed. Rep. 17. Plaintiff is a citizen of a foreign state, and is not a citizen of a state, in the sense in which the words are used in the constitution and the jUdiciary acts. Such citizen of a state must be a citizen of the United States. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393. A citizen of a state is not a citizen of the United States unlells he has th.e qualifications of the latter by birth or naturalization. U. S. v. Cruikshank. 92 U. S. 542; Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 12. And even a citizen of the United States, ,who is a citizen of the District of Columbia, (Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445; Bamey v. Baltimo1'e City, 6 Wall. 280,) or of a territory of the United States, (New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91.) is not a citizen of a state. That the words "citizens of different states," in the proviso relating to the district in which suit may be brought, at the end of section 1 of the act of March 3,1887, do not comprehend "foreign citizens," (or citizens of·" foreign states, ") is apparent from the use of both terms in the previoU.8
part of the section, which declares in what cases the circuit courts shall have . jurisdiction. Ross, J. This action was commenced in this court. It was brought to recover of defendant a large stlm of money, in amount exceeding one million of dollars, for services alleged to have been rendered, and for maps and data alleged to have been fUrI;lished, by plaintiff to an alleged Mexican corporation, styled "Luis Huller & Co. ," in connection with certain lands in the republic of Mexico, payment for which it is charged was assumed by the defendant. In the complaint it is averred that the plaintiff is, a citizen of the republic of Me;Kico, and a resident of the county of San Diego, state of California; that the de'fendant is a corporation duly created by the laws of the state of Connecticut; that under and by virtue of its charter it has the power and capacity to buy, receive, hold, and sell lands in any state of the United States, and in any and all parts of the republic of Mexico; and to do any and all acts, and to make any and all contracts, relating or incident to the purchase, sale, or holding of such lands; that defendant has ever since its creation carried on business by virtue and under the authority of and in accordance with its charter; that its principal place of business is in the city of Hartford, Btll.t.e pI Connecticut; an!! that it is "doing business in the state of California,:and.has an office and. managing agent in satrl state of California, within the county of San Diego." The summons issued in the action served by the marsha.;L of the district, as appears from the returnB indorsed thereon, upon one Charles Scofield, "managiflg agent of defendant in San Diego county."· The defendant has appeared specially and only for the purpose of objecting to any jurisdiction of this court oVer itj and has; among otherthings,pleaded that it is a foreign corporation, and tliat at ihe time of the commencement of this action, and at the time of the attempted service 'of process upon it, it had no place of business or agent or officer in this state, or any person authorized to receive service of legal process for it, and that Charles Scofield at the time of service upon him was not,' and never WB,S, a managing or other agent or officer of defendant within this state. Withou,t reference to the question of the sufficiency of the p]eaas set up in the' preliminaryans'fer, I think it sufficiently appears from the complaint itself that 'this court ,has no jurisdiction of the defendant in the action. By the act of congress approved March 3, 1887, it is provided"That circuit courts of the United States shall have original cognizance. concurrent With the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common la.w or in eqUity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interestandcosts,the sum' or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall.be made, llnder their authority; 61' in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners; or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of diffllrentstates, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs. the sum or 1'a.llie afuresaid; or a controversy between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states; or a controversy between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or sub.
DENroN ,,; INT1CRNATIONAL co.
jects, in which the matter in dispute exceeds. exclusive of interE'st llud costs, the sum or value aforesaid·. * * * Butpopel'son 'shall he arrested in one district for trial in another in any civil action before a circnit or district court; and no ci viI suit sball bt1brougnt before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other distrid than that founded only, on whereof he is an inhabitant; but where the the fact that the action is bet,ween citizens of different states, suit sha)) be brought only in the distric,t of ,the residence of either the plaintiff or tile defendant. ... ... *" 24 U. S. St. 553. So far as this section relates to the district in which a civil suit in a circuit or district court may be originally brought, its plain meaning, as held by Mr.,Justice FIELD, in WilBon v. Telegraph <:0.,34 Fed. Rep. 561, is this: "That such suit, where the jurisdiction is founded upon any of the causes mentioned in the. section except the citizenship of the parties in different states, must be brought in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant. But where such jurisdiction is founded SOlely upon the fact that the parties are citizens of different states, the suit may be brought in the district in which either the plaintiff or the defendant resides.'" The present is not a suit between citizens of different states, for the plaintiff is in the complaint alleged to be a citizen of the republic of Mexico, and the defendant to be a citizen ofthe state of Connecticnt. It is therefore suit between an alien and a citizen of a state, and, as has been seen, can only be brought in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant. That district, according to the averments of the complaint, is not the Southern district of California, but the district of Connecticut. The fact alleged, that the defendant is carrying on its chartered business within the state of California, and has a managing agent within this judicial district, does not constitute it an inhabitant of this' district. As both the charter of defendant and the laws of California permit this to be done, defendant may undoubtedly be sued in the courts of California. The extension of the operations of the corporation,however, beyond the limits of the state of its creation, does not constitute it an inhabitant of every district in which it may do business. It can have but one residence or habitat, and that is the place where its principal business is done. "A corporation," said the supreme court in Railroad a,o v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 12, "may for the purpose of suit be said to be born where by law it is created and organized, and to reside where, by or under the authority of its charter, its principal office is. A corporation, therefore, created by and organized under the laws of a. particular state, apd having its principal office there, is, under the constitution and laws, for the purpose of suing and being sued, a citizen· of that state, possessing all the rights, and having all the powers, its charter confers. It cannot migrate nor change its residence without the consent, expressed or implied, of its state; but it may transact busine!ls wherever its charter allows, unless prohibited by local laws." As the complaint itselfshows that defendant at the time of the bringing of this action was not an inhabitant·of thisjudicial district, the summons should be a.nd the action dismissed; and it is-so ordered.
MONTGOMERY 11. UNITED STATES.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Oregon. September 8,1888.)
COURTS-FEDERAL COURTS...-.JURISDICrION-CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATE!! -PUBLIO LANDS.
The word "claim," as used in the act of 1887. (24 St. 505.) A'iving this court jurisdiction to hear and determine certain claims against the United States, includes a "claim" by a purchaser of timber land under the act of 1878 (20 St. 89) to have a patent issue for the same. The ruling in Jone8 v. U. S., 35 Fed. Rep. 561, affirmed.
PUBLIO LANDS-SALE OF TIMBER LAND-WHEN COMPLETE.
A sale of timber land under the act of 1878, by the register and receiver of the local land-office, is completed on the payment of the purchase price, and the delivery of the certificate or receipt therefor; and it is not necessary that the same should be ratified or confirmed by the commissioner of the general land-office; but it is the duty of such commissioner, on receiving "the papers and testimony in the case" from the local land-office. if it appears primafaci6 therefrom that the law has been complied with, to cause a patent to issue thereon to the purchaser.
A court of equity has jurisdiction of a suit to compel the specific perform· ance of a contract to convey land,without reference to the locality of the same; and this court has jurIsdiction, under the act of 1887. of a suit against the United States to compel the issue of a patent to a purchaser of timber land under the act of 1878, although the same is situate in Washington ter· ritory. (Syllabus by tM (Jourt.)
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE-JURISDICTION-PUBLIC LANDS.
Suit to Compel the Issue of a Patent. W. Scott Beebe and Janl88 K. Kelly, for plaintiff. Lewis L. McArthur, for defendant.
government orthe United States," to compel the issue of a patent to the petitioner to the S. W. t of section 10, in township 9 N., of range 1 W. ()f the Wallamet meridian, It is. alleged in the petition that the petitioner resides in Multnomah county, Or., and it appears therefrom that the landin question is situated in Cowlitz county, Wash. T., and is of the value of $5,000, and not more than $10,000; that on October 28, 1882, said land was surveyed publio land of the United States, and supject to entry and purchase under the act of June 3, 1878, (20 St. 89,) for the sale of timber lands in the Pacific states, including Washington Territory, "and valuable chiefly for timber, but .unfit for cUltivation;" that on said October 28th the petitioner was a citizen of the United States, and, having complied with the requirements of said act, and the regulations governing the acquisition oflands thereun,der, so as to enable him to pay for the same, and claim a patent therefor from the United States, did on said day, at the United States land-office at Vancouver, ·Wash. T., purchase said land from the defendant, and did then and there pay to the receiver of said land-office the price therefor, to-wit, the sum of $400, or $2.50 an acre;
st. 505,) entitled "An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the
This suit is brought under the act of March 3,1887, (24