386 .. And no civil Stitt shall be brought before either of said courts against any person ,by)any original process of prooeeding [evidently meaning, · or prOceeding'] in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; but, where the jurisdiction is founrJ,ed only Qn'thefact that the action is between citiZeM of different states, suit be brought only in the district of the residencs of either the plaintiff or thede,fendant."
qvoted,but J;lot would, if standing alone, limit the jurisdiction ,of the federal courts to suitBbrought against defendantsin tMdistrictsof.thllir domicile; but effect shOuld be giveQ to the undersoor,a language, if it is capable ofeonstruction, arid we think it is. While-it must be admitted that the language ofthe aot is awkward so,"":"'we think theJPeahing of. .two quoted <W}llSes is this: When the jurisdiction depl:lnds'llpon the existence of a federal question, or upon, grounds other than the citizenship of the parties, the defendant must be sued in the district of his domicile; but, when the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties, the suit -maybe ,brought in ,the: ,district in which ,either the plaintiff or the defendant r-e$ides.This oonstru:ction is consistent with section 2, which provides that defendants who are sued out of the district in which they resi(1:e{m:ay ,rem:ove the 'suit from the state'court to the federal court,· when';'·ttnderllection l,it nlight have been originally brought in that court. If a defendant cannot be sued elsewhere than in the district, of his domicile, and the right of removal is denied both;,to resident plaintiffs and defendants, as it certainly is, then no suit can be removed at am' Itma.y be thatthejurlsdictionin this case could be sustained under section 8 ()f,theact of 1875, which is expressly continued-in force by seotion 5 oUho.,sctof1887. 'il::: ourduty:tothuB briefly state our reasons forgiving a oonstrrieaoin. to the act of 1887 not, in harmony with the opinion· oftbe leamedjudges,in County o! yubav. Mining
" ,. ..
COUNTY
:MJN. 0'0.
11.MARKEJll,
et al.
(Qirouit OQtwt. D.
December 15.1887.)
.' MkRc:iHl'l88t' .
broughqntbe United States courts against any person "in any other district tbantqat he is an inhabitant; but where the Jurisdiction is founded only'on the fact that the' action is between citizens of:different states, suit ,;shallbe bJ.1Ought only in the district of the residence of either the phiintitf or ,defen<Ja!1t,?: Section 2adopts thislimitation as defining the cases which may .. be reindved.Plaintiff. a resident corporation of Colorado, sued defendants, .. one of whom was a citizen of Minnesota and one ofWisconsin. in a Colorado COlJrt. and. defendants removed .tbe. case to tbe United. States court for the ?f ColO,l:ado. !lela, that it was pr?perly rl!m9Ved, as comingunrler the Drovlslonlldf the second clause of sectIon 1 of the aboye act. .
.." .. ' ... ., Actio! bongresB of March 8. 1887,' § 1, provides that; no civil suit shall be
bAi]sE6-DISTRIOT
IN
WHICH SUIT JUY
13ROUGJlT-AOT OJ'
PITKIN
14Ir,,\ CO. V.MARKELL.
'387
Motion. to. Remalldto 8tate The Pitkin County Mining Company, plaintitr,iv tion, sbed Clinton Markell, a' citizen df' Foster, a citizen of Wisconsiti, in a state court, Qfl'Colorado. Defendants removed the case to the, United 8ta,tes circuit court, and plaintiff )Jloved to remand Patter8iJtl, &: complainant. Ward &: Reuter, for defendant. HALLETT, J. Th,ese suits were brought of the state, and thence removed by defendants into this court under the acl of March 3, 1887. 24 81. at Large, 552. In the petitions' for· removal, defendants allege that plaintiff isa Colorado corporation, and that defendant Markellis a'citizen of Minnesota, and' defendant Foster is a citizen of Wisconsil)., ,and that they were such citizens at the. commencement of the $uits. Therefore the question presented is whether a suit by a citizen 'of this state against citizens of other states in a court of this state may be removed into this court under the act of 1887, on petition of the defend, ants. In support of the motions to remand, it is contended that the. first section ofthe act of 1887 limits the jurisdiction of circuit courts to cases where the defendants, or some of them, are inhabitants of the district in which the court has jurisdiction,and this limitation is adopted by the second section, asdefilling the cases which maybe removed.. The paragraph of section 1 relating to this matter reads as follows: "But noperson shall be one district for in another in allY civil action before a circuit or district court; and no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process Or proceeding in any other district thall that whereof he is an inhabitant; but the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the. action is between citizens ()f different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant. "
8tandingalone, that part of this clause which decla:res that "No civil suit shRll be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant," would afford strong support to the plaintiffs' position. But it does not stand alone; it is modified by the words following it, "where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action ii' between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant." And, so modified, the law is that a suit may be brought in the where the plaintiff resides whenever the defendant can be' found therein, evenwlaen the defendant is not an inhabitant of such district. That this is the proper construction of the act is clearly shown by debate in the sen.;. ate on March 3, 1887, which will be found in volume 18 of the Congressional Record, p. 2724, as follows: Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon. I should like to know from the judiciary committee, or the senator having the bill in charge, if it does not change the law wher\l a suit is brought by a citizen of one state agains't a citizen of ano'ther
388
I
FEDERAL REI'ORTER.
state, when the federal jurisdiction arises solelyout of that fact, so that a suit may lJebl'Qughtin eitherthe district where the plaintiff resides or the defendant resides? Is there not a radica},change in the law in that respect? ,Mr.J.Vilson, of Iowa. No;'1 do not think there is a rlldical change. Mr:Mttehell, of Oregon. Does not the first section, if it should become a ]aw;enal:l1e a person residing in 101'"ew York, for instance, to sue a person siding in the state of Oregon, for instance, by bringing a suit in the state of New York? Mr. Edmunds. No; quite the He could only sue in Oregon, Mr.,MitcheU. of Oregon. I do not .understand it that way. What does this ,mean? "But no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another,.in any civil action before a circuit or dIstrict court; and no civil suit Shllll be l>rought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any o.ther district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, b " . What I wish to caU attention to is what follows: "But wher!:' the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of differentstate!l, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the,plaintiff or defendant." What does that mean if it does not enable a person residing in the state of New York to sue a citizen of the state of Oregonia the district of New York. when the jurisdiction arises solely because of the fact that the suit is between citizens of different states? M1·. of Iowa. I do 110t think that is a change of the section of the law thll.t this bill proposes to modify. . Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon" Does the senator mean to say that that is the law noV\' ? Mr; Wilson, of Iowa. That is the law now. Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon. The act which the pending bill proposes to amend, the act of March 3, 1875. in the first section, speaking of jurisdiction, provides as follows: "But no peri?on shall be arrested in one district for trial in aIiother In' a,nyciyiI action circuit court or district court; and no civil suit shall bebronght either of said courts [that is, before the circuit or the distttct'coutt] against any person by any original. process or proceeding in anydther district than that Whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be foupd 'at the time of serving such proces.s or commencing such proceedings.'" rThatbeing the existing law. as I understand, it, when a person wishes to sue an inhabitant of the state of California, he must go into that ,state, an4;l suit there, unless he hliPpens to find the person he wishes to sue in some other district, and then he may sue there. Now, it is proposed to change that, as 1 understand · . Mr. Hoar. In the first place, the 'existing law allows a suit to be brought in the United'States· court between citizens of different states for amounts exceec1tng $500,·. is put up to $2,000. In the next place, it allows a defendant, a. of another state, wherever catches llim all ovel-the United States. That is the existing law; but the proposed 'change in theI'aw is that he can only sue him. they being citizens of different st!J.tes, defendant's state, or, if the defendant happens to be in the district of'ith6 plaintiff's home, then in the plaintiff's district. So, instead of the .sixty or seventy districts' whicb, by the existing law, the plaintiff can him in, there are only two left. Suppose the defendant goes to the plaintiff's home, and is found man doing business there: the plaintiff can Bue him in the state and the defendant can take himto the United States court. It is cei'tlii'nly reasonable that the plaintiff should be permitted, in the ' first instance. to take him into the United States court. Mr. Mitcnell, of Oregon. My friend then understands this section to mean that if the plaintiff" for 'instance, lives in the state of New York, and the defendant Uves in'the, state of California, then the plaintiff may either go to Cal-