of the province of British Columbia. The case has been again argued upon a demurrer to this secorid atnended bill.' In acoor4llJ1ce with my/ opinion heretoforegive.ndpthis case, I hold the bill of complaint as now amended to be sufficient to show has alien, and entitled tQID,il.iritliip. in , The only serious question arising upon,tbe deplUrrer to the secDndamended complaint is as to the con· strueUon and effect of theCanadilm statute of 1886. The words of the act appear to be qualified and limited, and it is contended that it does .I).Qt confer naturalization ,upon women, married to Canadians, whUeWey l'lfuiaip. within Canad.&..... 'Conceding this point, a,till the complainant isrioW, and at the .time ,of commencing this suit was, naturalized in Canada, and perm,.anently 40miciled there. If, by removing from Canada, her status as to .her citizenship should be changed, still, the jurisdiction of this court wou.!d not' be devested. Where the jurisdiction of a United States circuit court depends upon the citizenship or alienage of the parties, the jurisdictional facts must 'at the time when the jurisdiction is first invoked, and, after jurisdiction has attached, it does not become devested bY'subsequent changes of residence or alteration Of the status of the parties as citizens Prac. p. 41. Demurrer overruled. or aliens. . 1 Fost.
MORRISON v. NORTH AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION & TRADING CO.
, (CIrcuit Court, D. Washington, N.
February 7, 1898.)
REMOVAL OF CAUSE8-JOINDER OF ASSWNlilDCAUSES OF ACTION.
A suit was brought. in a state court on a. cause of action for breach of contract between plaintiff and defendant; also on seven other causes of action.· for 'damages for' the' breaking of other contracts with third parties, waich causes of action were assigned to plaintiff. Defendant removed the cause .to a federal court. field, that defendant could not thereafter question the jurisdiction of a federal court as to the assigned causes of action, on the ground that it would not have had jv.i'is!llctlop. If no assignment had " been made. '
This was an action founded on breaches of contract, and was brought by'Donald Morrison against the NOJ:th American Transportation & Trading Company, a corporation of the state of Illinois. Upton, Arthur & Wheeler, for plaintiff. Fred Bausman, for defendant. HANFORD, District Judge. The complaint alleges a cause of action for damages for the breaking' of a contract made and entered into by and between the plaintiff and the defendant, also seven other causes of action for damages for the breaking of seven other contracts made and entered into by and between the defendant and other persons; and alleges the assignment of the seven causes. of action to the plaintiff. The defendant, after having removed the case to this court from the state court in which it was commenced, questions the right of the plaintiff to prosecute the case in this court as to the seven assigned causes of action, on two grounds, viz. they are not as-
HUNTER V. CONRAD.
signable, and this court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof, for the reason that it does not appear that there would have been any ground for, federal jurisdiction if no assignment had been made. As to the first cause of there is a controversy between citizens of different states, and on that ground this court has jurisdiction, and the case is removable. It is not the intention of the law to work an injustice to a plaintiff by authorizing a dt!fendant to remove a cause into a United States circuit court, and by that proceeding deprive the plaintiff of the right which the law gives him of joining'in one action several causes of action. The right of removal is for the purpose of having an adjudication upon the merits, and is not given . for the mere purpose of defeating a right of action, without a trial on the merits. , The Oode of this state authorizes an assignee to sue in his own name upon any judgment, specialty, book account, or other chose in action for the payment of money, when the assignment has been made in writing by a person apthorized to make the same. 2 Ball. Oodes & St. Wash. § 4835. A chose in action is a right of proceeding in a court of law to procure the payment of a sum of money, or to recover pecuniary damages for the infliction of a wrong or the nonperformance of a contract. 1 Rap. & L. Law Dict. .206, 207. Each of the causes of action in this complaint subsequent to the first is, according to the legal definition of the phrase, a chose in action for the payment of money, and may be assigned, and a suit thereon maintained in the name of the assignee by virtue of the laws of this state.
HUNTER v. CONRAD et al.
(Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island.
March 12, 1898.)
REMOVAL OF CAUSES-DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP-SEPARABLE CONTROVERSIES.
Under the act of August 13, 1888, § 2, whenever a controversy is wholly between citizens of different states, one of several defendants, being actually Interested therein, a nonreSident, and a citizen of another state, may remove it to a federal court, irrespective of whether the suit involves separable controversies or only one.
This was a suit by James O. Hunter against Mabel B. Oonrad and others. The case was heard on a motion to remand to the state court. Nathan W. Littlefield, for complainant Francis Oolwelland Walter H. Barney, for respqndents. BROWN, District Judge. The citizenship and residence of the parties are as follows: The complainant is of New York; the respondent Mrs. Oonrad, of Montana; the respondents Wood and .Anthony, ,of Rhode The suit was brought in the state court of Rhode'Island',The removal was upon the sole petition of Mrs. Oonrad; .the Rhode Island respondents neither joining in the petition, nor to the removal. The complainant moves to remand. As there are not on opposite sides. of the controversY,citizens of the same state, the c;ontrovfrsyis "wholly between citizens of different