ROBJ:SSON II. TAytOR.
(Oi'rcuU OCYWrt, S. D. Iowa, E. D. .Tuue 26, 1890.)
REMOVAL OP'CAUlllIs-Cm:ilENSHIP OJ' CORPORA.TIONS.
A petition for removal of·g calise by a corporation of one state sued in the courts of anothe.r ·lItate .is not suflloient unless it, alleges, in addition to the usual averments as to .oitizenship, thatlt is a non-resident of the state in whioh it issued. . '
At Law.' On motionto·i'emlirid.' The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Wisconsin. It was sued in the district Court of this state, in and for Cedar countYi service of process being made, under section 2613 of the Code of Iowa, upon an agent. The cause was removed to this court upon a petition which avel'red the necessartcitizenship of the parties, but which contained DO avel'ment that defendant was a non-resident of the state of Iowa. Plaintiff moves to remand because of the absence of this averment. W. J. Roberta, for plaintiff. Oraig,McCrary & Craig, for defendant.
MILLER, Justice. A corporation is a citizen of the state under whose laws it is organized. For the purpose of suing and being sued, it may become a resident of each state in which it does business under state law. The rule, under the removal act of August 13, 1888, as to natural persons, is applicable to corporations. When a corporation of one state is sued in the courts of another state, a petition for removal by it is not sufficient unless it alleges, in addition to the usual averments as to citiof the state in which it is sued. The zenship, that it isa motion to remand is sustained.
(OCrcuu oourt, N. D. M1.BII'£BBippf., E. D. .Tune 18, 1890.) L
On motion for the appointment of a reoeiver of the property of a deoedent in possession of one olaiming to be his son and heir, complainants alleged that they were the next of kin and collateral heirs of decedent. who died without lineal heirs, and that defendant was his illegitimate son. Defendant answered that he was dece. son and heir, and there was evidence showing tbat decedent had lived for many years with defendant's mother, recognizing her as his wife, and de. fendant as his son. After living thus together, defendant's mother entered into illicit with another man, and was repudiated by decedent, and afterwards both he and the woman stated that they had never been married. Decedent deeded:all his property to defendant, and the deeds were attacked by complainants as invalid. .Bflld that, as defendant could Buffer no great harm by holding that complainants had established a prima jac£e right to the estate, a receiver would be appointed until final hearing on the merits of the case. ;&. .8AKB. In such case, being shown to be competeAt. to manage the estate.wu appointed receiver on givmg bond.
Mr. BriStowb-nd -[nile & Birge; for complainants. " Bogle & Young and JO'l'dan Boone, , for defendant. .
HILL, J. The questions now Jor.decision arise :upon complaiqants' motion for the appointment of a receiver to take cha'l'geof, preserve,alid manage the property and thebrlL:I'lle allegations in the bill are ihat complainants are the only next of kin arid heirs at law of Alonzo H. Taylor, who died, 'intqstllote in Alcorlb90unty in this that' he died or. the reaJanq.; ,-personal estate in the bill,alldthllt thedefeqdant is unlll:wfully in possession of the same, andholdingJt adverse,ly to the claimEl of complainants, and that4efendant i!'l insolvent;:thatthe,c\>nwlainants' interests require the ofa receiver to take posse!,!sion of, hold, and. manage said during this litigatioll . The answer of the defendant denies that COmplainants are the J:l,ext of kin and heirs at law of said decedent, A. H. Taylor, and entitled to the estate and property described in the bill, or that they have any title, claim to, or interest in the !'lame. The answer further states that defendant il'l the legitimate son, and .only next of kin and heir at law, of said A. H. Taylor, and as such is entitled to, and is the owner of, all the estate, real and personal, of wh,ich said decedent died seised and possessed, and admits that he died intestate. Th,e answer further avers that the said A. H. Taylor, in his life-time., all of the re!,1J estate, property, cho13es in action, etc., desqribed in the bill, by two deeds filed as exhibits to the answer, and wpe made parts of it. ,,A. yery large num ber p,f affidavits exhibits have been filed as tes,;I;irponyop,p,oth theque 13 tions have been argued at great length, and with great ability, by the cpunsel oIl both sides, as if the cause were on final hearing. The answer of the defendant throws the burden upon complainants to produce strong prima facie evidence that they have toe title, legal or equitable, to the estate and property described in the bill; otherwise their motion must be denied. The affidavits show thll,tcprnplainl1nts are the d!\,ughters of John C. Taylor, who was a brother of said A. H. Taylor, and who died before A. H. Taylor; that'i'saidA:H. Taylor left c sllrviving hinrno father, mother, brother, or sister, or descendant of such, except complainants; and tqat, in the absence of a child, widow,'ordescendant of such, the complainants are heirs at luwQf Said !. H. Taylor. The defendant, John W. Taylor, in his answer, avers that he is the lawful and legitimateson of decedellt,and as such is entitled to the inheritance of all the estate, real andpersonal,of which he died seised and possessed. If this by'tJ:ie proofs, then complainan,ts have no claim thereto. The burden of showing that defendant is such legitimate son, next of)tiri" ilo,d heir at,Jawof thedecedent, is \lpon defendant,"""':'not in this proceeding to that degree of certainty that will be required upon .flI!a111ea,rir;ig,. but so ,to rebut the prima facie title of complainants) which brings tis to consider the proof which has been presented oll!:?oth