appella.te court. The amount claimed, was less than the minimum atnount 'llecessaryto give the suprem'ecourt power to entertain:suoh review. We are; of opinion that this oourt is without jurisdictionto l'eview this judgment. We find no laQguage in the act indicating -an; intention to nla:ke:it retroactive. Such statutes should be given on1Y:8; prospeotive'operation; unless a contrary intent is exprflssed in. the ao1.U. S. v. Heth, 3 Cra.nch,399j Mayor v; Schermerhorn, 1 N. Y. 423,426; 'Burch v. Newbury,10 N. Y. 374; In re Eager, 46 .N. Y. 100; Railway Co. v. Judge, 10 Bush, 564j Rowell v.Railway Co., 59 N. H. 35; Yansittart v. El. & Bl. 910; In re Phcenix Bessemer Steel Co., 45 Law J. Ch. 11. ' Writ of error dismissed.
CARNEGIE, ]?BIP!,S & CO., Limited, v. HULBERT et aL (Clrcuit Court of, APpeals, Eighth Circuit. October 81, 1892No. 184.
FBDlCll.AL DlV1llnsE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
' A limited partnership organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, and em· powered thereby to sue in its partnership name, is neither a corporation nor of that. state;lwithin the meaning of the statute requiring diverse chi2:eusb.ip ,to give jurill,dietion to a federal circuit court; and it can only maintain'such a suit by averring the proper citizenship of the partners.
In to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebra$L. Action by Carnegie, Phipps & Co., Limited, against ,J. H. Hulbert, E. A. Blum, H. P. Drexel, Albert FoIl, and E. J.Refregier, sureties on a bond given to prevent the :filing of mechanics' liens, pursuant to section 4 iof the act of the general assembly of Iowa, approved April 7, 1884, en,titled "An act to protect subcontractors for performed and material furnished for public buildingsEind improvements." Judgment,for defendants., ,Plaintiff brings error.., Reversed.' Westel W. Morsman,J. M. Junkin, and Smith McPherson, for plaintiff in error. . B. G. Burbank, for defendants in error Drexel and Foll. C. H. Breck and A. A. McClanahan, for defendant in error Refregier. Brome, Andrews & Sheean·:filed brief for defendants in elTOr Hul· bert and Blum. Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and SHIRAS, District Judge.
CALDWELL, Circuit JUdge. This action was'brought in the cir· cuit court of the United States for the district of Nebraska. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and judgment rendered for the defendants, and thereupon the plaintiff sued out .this writ of error. The case has, argued upon its merits, but,upon looking into the record, it appears the following istheonly.jurisdictional averment in the complaint relating to the citizetUlbip of the plaintiff:
"The plainUff. Oarnegie. Phipps &; Co., Limited, acopartners,hip organized un· der and created by the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, and by the laws of said state of Peunsylvania authorized and empowered to sue and be'sued in its copart·
nershio name, respectfully represents that .saldGopartnershi.p' is in. and has its principal place of busmess In, the city of Plttsburgh,and state of Pennsylvania, and is a citizen of .sald state." .
This averment does not show a case of which the circuit court could take jurisdiction. The allegation is that the plaintiff is a ship created by the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, and not a corpot'ation. A copartnership is not a corporation, and cannot be a citizen of a state, within the meaning of the statutes regulating the jurisdiction of the circuit court. By forCe of the decisions of the supreme court, the stockholders of a corporation, for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of.thefederal courts in suits to which the corporation is a party, are conclusively presumed to be citizens of the state by whose laws the corporation was created. Railroad Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286; BricJge Co. v. Shepherd; 20 How. 227. But no such presumptionobtain$ as to the members of a copartnership. The fact that, by the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, this copartnership is authorized to sue in its copartnership name in that state, does not authorize it to sue in the federal court as a citizen of that state. Chapman Barney, 129 U. S. 677, 682, 9 Snp. Ct. Rep. 426. When a copartnership sues, the citizenship of the partners composing it be avelTed, and must be such as to confer the jurisdiction. For aught that appears in the record, the members of the copartnership and t'l1e defendants may be citizens of the same state. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed" for want of jurisdiction, at the costs of the plaintiff in elTor, and the cause remanded, with directions to that court to dismiss it unless the plaintiff shall amend its complaint to show jurisdiction.
THE PILOT. THE PILOT v.UNITED STATES. DUNSMUIR
BRAD8HAW, Collector of Customs. December 1, 1892. Nos. 80. 81.
Circuit Court of Appeals. Ninth Circuit.
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAI,S-.JURISDICTTON-TREATIES-FOREIGN
The treaty between the United States and Great Britain of June 15, 1846. fixes the boundary between the two countries In the straits of San Juan de Fuca by a liDe following the middle of the strait; but the same treatv secures to each nation a right of free navigation over all the waters of the strait. Rev. St. 4370. Imposes a penalty against foreign tugs towing American vessellJ from one American port to another except where the towing. in whole or in part. is on foreign waters. Held. that the circuit court of appeals has jurisdiction of an. appeal from a decree in admiralty holding that the waters north of the boundary established by the treaty are not "foreign waters," within the meaning of the statute, since neither the validity nor the construction of the. treaty is drawn in question, so as to require that the appeal should be to the supreme conrt. under the judiciary act of M.arch 3, 1891, 5. Bubd. 5. (26 St. at Large, p. 826.)
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the District of Washington. . In Admiralty. Libel by the United States against the British steam tug Pilot- for towing an American vessel between American