JENNES V. LANDES.
although the mistake might have been avoided if greater care had been taken to investigate and ascertain the facts regarding the transaction. U. S. v. Barlow, 132 U. S. 271-282, 10 Sup. Ct. 77. This demurrer is also based in part upon the ground that there is a defect of parties defendant. It is insisted that the comptroller of the currency and treasurer of the United States are indispensable parties, for the reason that the $3,050, paid by the complainant to the receiver has been placed in the treasury of the United States, and can only be repaid by the treasurer, under an order to be made by the comptroller of the currency, authorizing such repayment. It has not been usual to join these officers as parties defendant in actions of this nature, and, as they are not within the reach of process of this court, it is not practicable to bring them into the case so as to bind them by any judgment which the court can render. The receiver of an· insolvent national bank is authorized to sue and defend actions for the purpose of collecting the assets, and for the adjudication of disputed claims against such bank. The court can only go so far as to render a declaratory judgment, establishing the rights of the respective parties. If the complainant obtains a judgment in his favor, the comptroller of the currency must make an order to pay it. It is not to be presumed that the officers of the government will refuse to pay, in whole or in part, any lawful judgment; but, if there should be an obstinate refusal on the part of the comptroller of the currency, or on the part of the treasurer of the United States, to pay a judgment out of the funds available for the pUrpofle, the complainant must seek for vindication of his rights by an application to a court having jurisdiction at the place where said officers reside for coercive measures. But the possibility of having to work out satisfaction of a judgment with the assistance of a court of another jurisdiction forms no barrier to an adjudicathm of the rights of the parties within the jurisdiction of this court. If the suit were against the defendant in his capacity as an individual, and if he had no property subject to execution in this district, but did have ample means situated in another state, it could not be insisted that he would not be suable in this court, because the judgment could not be enforced by process of this court, nor could it be urged that persons in another state were necessary parties defendant, because they were in actual possession of the only property available to satisfy a judgment against the defendant. Demurrer overruled.
JENNES v. LANDES et aI. (Circuit Court, D. Washington, N. D. December 31, 1897.)
EQUITY PLEA PING CESS. SUFFICIENCY OF BILL-NECESSITY OF PRAYER FOR PRO-
A bill is not demurrable because it contains no prayer for process where the defendants who are required to answer are named both in the caption and body of the bill. The consent of the United States is not necessary to enable a citizen to voluntarily expatriate himself, and become a citizen of another country.
ALIENAGE-NECESSITY OF CO]'i;SENT OF
Allegations in a bill against citIzens of the state of Washington that complainant was by birth a citizen of that state, but by her marriage with a British subject, and removal to BritIsh Columbia, became a citizen of Great Britain, no law of that country making her a citizen by reason of such facts being pleaded, are insufficient to sustain the jurisdiction of the federal court on the ground of diversity of citizenship.
It will not be presumed, in the absence of a showing that there is a British law conferring it, that the Canadian parliament has power to naturalize a citizen of the United States, and make him a citizen of Great Britain; and the setting out in a bill of a Canadian statute, under which it is claimed the complainant, who is by birth a citIzen of the United States, became a British subject, is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the federal court on the ground that complainant is an allen.
SAME,-PLEADING STATUTE OF CANADA.
This is a suit in equity, by Lutie Jennes, a married woman, against Henry Landes and others, for an accounting respecting certain property to which she claims ownership. The defendants have demurred to the bill on two grounds, viz.: The bill does not contain a prayer for process, nor designate the defendants who are required to answer, and the bill shows upon its face that the case is not within the jurisdiction of this court. Demurrer sustained. W. F. Hays and Charles E. Shepard, for plaintiff. A. R. Coleman and Richard Saxe Jones, for defendants. HANFORD, District Judge. Both in the caption and in the body of the bill of complaint the defendants who are required to answer are named, and plainly designated. This being so, the bill is not de· murrable, because there is no prayer for process. The complainant was born in the state of Washington, and lived in the state of Washington until her marriage to a British subject, when she removed to, and became permanently domiciled in, British Columbia, and she is now an inhabitant of British Columbia; and in her bill of complaint alleges that by her change of domicile and marriage she has become and is a subject of the queen of Great Britain. The showing that complainant was by birth a citizen of the United States raises a question as to her alienage at the time of commencing this suit, and, as the jurisdiction of this court depends upon diversity of citizenship, it must be alleged positively, and facts must be proven sufficiently. to satisfy the mind of the court beyond any question of legal doubt that she is an alien; otherwise the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. A change of allegiance from one government to another can only be effected by the voluntary action of the subject, complying fully with the conditions of naturalization laws, so that there is concurrent action and assent on the part of both the subject and the government to which the new allegiance attaches. Authorities entitled to great respect have been cited in the argument, holding that it is also necessary to have assent on the part of the government renounced. In my opinion, that rule no longer obtains in the United States, sinee eongress, by the act of July 27, 1868, now re-enacted in section 1999, Rev. St., has expressly declared it to be the poliey of our government that the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people,
84 FEDERAL REPORTER.
ELKHART NAT. BANK OF ELKHART, IND., v. NORTHWESTERN GUARANTY LOAN CO. OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., et aI. (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
December 10, 1897.)
PARTIES-WHO NECESSARY IN SUIT TO ENFORCE INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY OJ!' STOCKHOLDERS.
To a bill by a creditor of a corporation averring its insolvency, and demanding the appointment of a receiver, an accounting, and the enforcement of the individual liability of the stockholders, the corporation is a necessary party defendant.
OF STOCKHOLDERS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION.
2. FEDERAL COURTs-JURISDICTION-Surr TO ENFORCE INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY
Where the jurisdiction of the federal courts depends on the diverse citi· zenship of the parties, the federal courts of the residence of stockholders of an insolvent corporation, organized under the laws of another state, have no jUrisdiction of a suit brought by a creditor of the corporation for an accounting and a receivershIp, and to enforce the individual liability of the stockholders, if the corporation has not voluntarily appeared in the action. In such case the nonresident corporation cannot be compelled to appear. Smith v. Lyon, 10 Sup. Ct. 303, 133 U. S. 315, and Improvement Co. v. Gibney. 16 Sup. Ct. 272, 160 U. S. 217, followed and applied.
SAME-PLEADING AND PRACTICE.
In such a case, the defendant stockholders who' appear may set up this defense by demurrer.
This was a bill in equity by the Elkhart National Bank of Elkhart, Ind., which sued as a citizen of Indiana, against the Northwestern Guaranty Loon Company of Minneapolis, a corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota, and Edward P. Allison and others, stockholders in the Northwestern Guaranty Loan Company, and citizens of Pennsylvania. The Northwestern Guaranty Loan Company was not served with process, and did not appear. The other defendants appeared, and by demurrer denied the jurisdiction of the court. The pleadings are sufficiently set out in the opinion. M. H. Boutelle, for complainant. John G. Johnson and W. C. Rodman. for respondents. DALLAS, Circuit Judge. This is a suit in equity brought by the Elkhart National Bank, a citizen of the state of Indiana, against the Northwestern Guaranty Loan Company, a citizen of the state of Minnesota, and the several other defendants named in the bill, all of whom are alleged to be citizens of the state of Pennsylvania, and residents of the Eastern district of that state. Manifestly, the objection made by these demurrers, that the Northwestern Guaranty Loan Company cannot be required to appear in this district, is supported by the ruling of the supreme court of the United States in Smith v. Lyon, 133 U. S. 315, 10 Sup. Ct. 303, which in the later case of Improvement Co. v. Gibney, 160 U. S. 217, 16 Sup. Ct. 272, is referred to as having decided that a suit in which there is more than one plaintiff or more than one defendant must be brought in the district in which all the plaintiffs or all the defendants are inhabitants. The Northwestern Guaranty Loan Company is a citizen and an inhabitant, not of this district, but of the state of Minnesota. It has not voluntarily ap-