¶11. Appeal and error <§=>23 — A;,;;- Hato court must determine jurisdictional question.
¶2The Circuit Court of Appeal must of its own motion inquire as to tlie jurisdiction of the court below.
¶32. Courts ‘§=433 — Alien domicile!! In Porto Bico cannot sue in the United States District Court.
¶4The United States District Court does not have jurisdiction of a suit hy a citizen of Spain domicil'd in Porto Bico against a defendant, also a resident in Porto Bico.
¶5Appeal from the District Coni c of the United States for the District of Porto Rico; Peter J. Han ikon, Judge.
¶6Suit by Antonio Diez y Gonzalez against Enrique O. Green y Morales and others. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
¶7Decree set aside, and case remanded, ■ with directions to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction.
¶8Hugh R. Francis, of San Juan, P. R. (Francis &• De la Haba, of San Juan, P. R., on the brief), for appellant.
¶9Philip N. Jones, of Boston, Mass. (Boyd B. Jones, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellees.
¶10Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
¶12[1] This is a suit in equity in the District Court of the United States for the District of Porto Rico by a citizen of Spain domiciled in Porto Rico against a defendant, also resident in Porto Rico. We must of our own motion inquire as to the jurisdiction. Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 4 Sup. Ct. 510, 28 L. Ed. 462; Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Twitchell, 59 Fed. 727, 8 C. C. A. 237.
¶13[2] Plainly this case is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Porto Rico Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Diaz Mor, 253 U. S. -, 40 Sup. Ct. 516, 64 L. Ed. — , decided June 1, 1920. The case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
¶14The decree of the District Ccurt is set aside, and the case is remanded to that court, with directions to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction, without costs, and without prejudice to either party.