ARGUED AND DETERMINED
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. Novembef 7, 1891.)
JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT CoURT-VENIRE.
When the jurisdiction of the cirouitcourt arises only from the fact that the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states, suit may be brought, under Act Congo Aug. 18, 1888, (258t, at Large4ll8,) in the circuit court of the district in which eitherthe plaintiff or the defendant resides ; and where the defendant is a corporation organized under the law of another state, but m,aintaining an office in the state wherein the plaintiff resides, suit may be brought in the circuit court of the latter state.
At Law. Motion to set aside service of process. Robinson, Bright, Biddle k Ward, for the motion. McAdam k McAdam and H.
BROWN, J. The plaintiff is a 'citizen and resident of this district· The defendant is a corporation organized in the state of Delaware, having a place of business in this city, and properly served with process here. The motion is made to set aside ,the service for want of jutisdiction(jf the cause, it being contended that under the act of August 13, 1888, (25 St. at Large, 433,) the defendant could be sued only in the state of its incorporation. The previous decisions in this circuit cited in support of the motion do not rest lipon the construction of the statute contended for. In Filli v. Railway Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 65, the plaintiff was a non-resident and the raHway company was organized in another state. In National, Typographic 00. V. New York Typographic 00.,44 Fed. Rep. 711, one of the plaintiffs was a non-resident, as well as the defendants as to whom the'dismissal was granted, and proceeded upon other grounds. In the case last cited the circuit judge states that he follows the decisions of Mr. Justice BREWER in Booth V. Manufacturing Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 1, and of SRmAS, J., in Myers v. Murray, 43 Fed. Rep. 695. v,48F.no.1-1 .
These citations sufficiently show that the point considered was different from the present, for in the last case it was directly adjudged that where relatiop as in the present case the court the parties stand in the had jurisdiction of the action, tIle motion to remand being denied. On referring to the act of congress itself, there seems to me no doubt of the jurisdiction in the preseptcase, ,it is expressly provided that "where the jurisdiction is founded tmlyon the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defimdant." This is a clear qualification of the language immediately preceding, and authorizes court ofthedistriot where the plaintiff,fesides, when, suit in the as in this case, the jurisdicti9n is fOU,nded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states. The provision of the statute itself seems to me so clear that it is unnecessary to refer to the extreme inconvenience of any different construction. Motion denied.
INDEPENDENT DISTRICT OF ROCK RAPIDS
ti. BANK OF'ROett RAPIDS 6t ale
is reoovered by a bankagaiust 1101'1 illdepetidElb:t sohool-distrlot, and tbelaiterissues, ol'jierllfor the paYll;l'llbt l'hereof, whicborders the bank transfers 1lO a'third person, the transferee clatmingto be the 'owner, the bank, as well as tbe transferee, is a proper party defendant to a bill to cancel the judgments, and, when a resident of the same lItate with the plainti1!, the cause is not removable to the federal courts.
C'&''tl'SB-PARTIES':'''O.UWELLATION ' ()Jr.,JUIIGMENTS.
In Equity. Bill to ,cancel judgmen;ts On ground of illegality of consideration. Motion to remand to state court. McJllJillan Van Wagenen, for complainant., : M. ParsonB and, Crase,fof, defendants. , in the district cou,rt of Lyon county« , ,8HmAs; J. This suit Iowa, the purpose ,of the,qilll;>eing to obtain thecl;l.ncellation oftwojudgJ!lents in or Rock Rapids and against the complainant. FrplD the of it that, after the rendition of the indepf;lndent district issued orders for the payment thereof upon 'the treasurer pf the district, and these orqersJIave been livered or transferred by the bank ti>Jo4n N. the named ,party now theo.wner of the judgments, Under these it cannot he, questioned that both,tge, Bank of Rock Rap" ids and Johp. N. Richards ,are /;tit least,proper, if:,notneoessary, partie", to bill for thEl,pqtpose of the judgments and orders drawn on the, treasury Of the, district, for illegality alleged to inhere in the is not iqvolved in bill separable and distinot controversies, there 'being in fact but one issue, to-wit, are the judg-