incorporated even if it operates a railroad in the district where it is sued. The fact that the alien is a resident of the district where the suit is brought does not give the court jurisdiction of such a case.10 Where no Federal question was involved, it was held that, when the defendants are citizens of different districts, they cannot be sued by an alien in any one of them.11

This rule does not apply to an action to recover the penalty for the importation of contract labor under the Immigration Act of February 20, 1907.12 Such a suit may be brought in the district where the alien was to perform the labor.13

An alien who has no residence within the United States may be sued by a citizen of one of the United States in the Federal court in any district where he can be served with process.14 So it has been held in suits to enjoin the infringement of patents,15 as well as in other cases; and even when the defendant is an alien corporation, over which the State statute deprives its court of jurisdiction; 16 provided that it transacts business within the State, but not otherwise; 17 and also when the plaintiff is a citizen and resident of a different State from that where the suit is brought.18

A non-resident alien defendant may remove a suit involving the jurisdictional amount, when all the parties on the opposite

8 Adzenoska v. Erie R. Co., 210 Fed. 571; Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Washko, C. C. A., 231 Fed. 42; Yanuszauckas v. Mallory S. S. Co., C. C. A., 232 Fed. 132; Vitkus v. Clyde S. S. Co., 232 Fed. 288; Lucksinger v. Phila. & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 232 Fed. 292; Best v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 243 Fed. 789; Budris v. Consolidation Coal Co., 251 Fed. 673.

9 Adzenoska v. Erie R. Co., 210 Fed. 571.

10 Miller v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (D. Mass.), 147 Fed. 771. 11 McAulay v. Moody (D. Or.), 185 Fed. 144.

12 34 St. at L. 900, Comp. St. § 4250.

13 Tomkins v. Paterson, 238 Fed. 879.

14 Re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653, 37 L. ed. 1211; Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 42 L. ed. 964; Carp v. Queen Ins. Co., 168 Fed. 782; Vestal v. Ducktown Sulphur & Iron Co., 210 Fed. 375; H. G. Baker & Bro. v. Pinkham et al., 211 Fed. 728. Contra, Meyer v. Herrera (W. D. Texas, San Antonio Division), 41 Fed. 65.

15 United Shoe Mach. Co. v. Duplessis Independent Shoe Mach. Co. (D. Mass.), 133 Fed. 930.

16 Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 42 L. ed. 964.

17 Tierney v. Helvetia Swiss Fire Ins. Co., 163 Fed. 82.

18 Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 42 L. ed. 964; Jarowski v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., C. C. A., 182 Fed. 320.

side of the controversy are citizens and residents of the same State of the United States and when the plaintiffs reside in the district where the suit is brought; 19 and it has been held when they reside elsewhere.20 A resident alien cannot when no Federal question is involved.21 It has been held, that when a nonresident alien is joined as a defendant with a non-resident citizen of a different State from that of a resident plaintiff, they may jointly remove the case if the jurisdictional amount is involved; 22 but this cannot be done when the plaintiff is not a resident of the State where the suit is brought.23 A suit by a State in its own court against an alien cannot be removed.24 The authorities are in conflict as to whether a defendant, who is a citizen and resident of a different State from that where the suit is instituted, can remove an action brought by an alien in the State court. The preponderance of the more recent authorities holds that he cannot, whether the alien is a resident,25 or non

19 Cooley v. McArthur, 35 Fed.

372.

20 Wind River Lumber Co. v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass Ins. Co., C. C. A., 196 Fed. 340.

21 Johnson v. Monell, Fed. Cas. No. 7,399 (1 Woolw. 390); Sands v. Smith, Fed. Cas. No. 12,305 (1 Abb. U. S. 368, 1 Dill. 290); Cudahy v. McGeoch, 37 Fed. 1; Walker v. O'Neill, 38 Fed. 374; Eddy v. Casas, 118 Fed. 363; Miller v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 147 Fed. 771; Rooker v. Crinkley, 113 N. C. 73, 18 S. E. 56. Contra, Best v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 243 Fed. 789.

22 Ballin v. Lehr, 24 Fed. 193; where the report does not show whether the alien was a resident or a nonresident; Roberts v. Pac. & A. Ry. & Nav. Co., C. C. A., 121 Fed. 785, 58 C. C. A. 61, affirming 104 Fed. 577; Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co., 179 Fed. 245. See, also, Rateau v. Bernard, 3 Blatchf. 244, Fed. Cas. No. 11,579. Contra, Tracy

v. Morel (D. Nebraska), 88 Fed.' 801; Best v. Great Northern Ry Co., 243 Fed. 789 (where the alien lived in the state where the suit was brought).

23 Carp v. Queen Ins. Co. (W. D. Mo.) 168 Fed. 782. Contra, Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co. (S. D. Tenn.), 179 Fed. 245, 256.

24 O'Conor v. Texas, 202 U. S. 501.

25 Kamenicky v. Catterall Printing Co. (S. D. N. Y.), 188 Fed. 400 (in which the author was counsel); Odhner v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (S. D. New York) 188 Fed. 507; Sagara v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (D. Col.) 189 Fed. 220. These cases follow the analogy of Ex parte W'sner, 203 U. S. 449, 51 L. ed. 264. See, also, Petrocokino v. Stuart, Fed. Cas. No. 11,041; Matter of Tobin, 214 U. S. 506, 53 L. ed. 1061. Contra, Uhle v. Burnham, (S. D. N. Y.) 42 Fed. 1 (residence not shown); Stalker v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., (S. D. Cal.) 81 Fed. 989 (residence not shown);

resident,26 of the State where the suit is brought.

Where an alien is a party to a suit in a District Court of the United States, an objection to the jurisdiction founded upon residence may be waived.27 Where the suit is originally brought in the Federal court, the plaintiff by suing makes such a waiver and the defendant is the only person who can object to the jurisdiction on this ground.28 Where the suit is originally brought in the State court, the defendant by the removal consents to the jurisdiction of the court of the United States and the plaintiff alone can make such an objection.29

A District Court of the United States, where no Federal question is involved, has no jurisdiction of an action brought by an alien to enforce a chose in action that has been assigned to him, unless his assignor could have maintained the suit upon the ground of a difference of citizenship.30

The District Courts of the United States can obtain no jurisdiction, either originally or by removal, by reason of a diversity of citizenship, when the controversy is between two aliens; 31

Smellie v. Southern Pac. Co., (N. D. Cal) 197 Fed. 641 (residence not shown); Keating v. Pennsylvania Co., 245 Fed. 155.

26 Harold v. Iron Silver Min. Co., (D. Col.) 33 Fed. 529; Mahopoulus v. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co., (W. D. Mo.) 167 Fed. 165; Bagenas v. Southern Pac. Co., (N. D. Cal.) 180 Fed. 887; Hall v. Great Northern Ry. Co., (D. Montana) 197 Fed. 488. Contra, Sherwood v. Newport News & M. Val. Co., (W. D. Tenn.) 55 Fed. 1; Creagh v. Eq. Life Assur. Soc., (D. Wash.) 83 Fed. 849; Morris v. Clark Constr. Co., (D. S. C.) 140 Fed. 756; Iowa Lillooet Gold Min. Co. v. Bliss, (N. D. Ia.) 144 Fed. 446; Barlow v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., (N. D. Ia.) 172 Fed. 513; H. J. Decker Jr. & Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., (N. D. Ala.) 189 Fed. 224; Wind River Lumber Co. v. Frankfort Marine, Accident

& Plate Glass Ins. Co., C. C. A., 196 Fed. 340.

27 Infra, § 62a.

28 H. J. Decker Jr. & Co. V. Southern Ry. Co., 189 Fed. 224. See infra, § 62a.

29 H. J. Decker Jr. & Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 189 Fed. 224. See infra, § 62a.

30 Tierney v. Helvetia Swiss Fire Ins. Co., (E. D. N. Y.) 163 Fed. 82. See infra, § 63.

31 Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dallas, 12, 1 L. ed. 720; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 46, 2 L. ed. 545; King v. Cornell, 106 U. S. 395, 27 L. ed. 60; Walton v. McNeil, Fed. Cas. No. 17,134; Prentiss v. Brennan, Fed. Cas. No. 11,385 (2 Blatchf. 162); Rateau v. Bernard, Fed. Cas. No. 11,579 (3 Blatchf. 244); Hinckley v. Byrne, Fed. Cas. No. 6,510 (1 Deady, 224); Petrocokino v. Stuart, Fed. Cas. No.

nor when a citizen of the same State as that of the opposite party is on the same side of the controversy as an alien; 32 even if the controversy is separable; 33 nor can they obtain jurisdiction when a State and an alien are parties.34

A

§ 46. Determination of citizenship of natural persons. citizen of the United States is a citizen of the State in which he permanently resides and has his domicile.1 A man may be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of any State and consequently have no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts because of difference of citizenship. It has been so held when he changes his residence to a foreign country' or when he becomes a nomad. The exercise of the right of suffrage by a citizen of the United States is conclusive evidence of his citizenship.5

3

It has been held, that voting in a party primary, and membership in a local political committee, are not conclusive evidence of citizenship. The acts of town officers in registering a man as a voter and assessing a poll tax against him are evidence of

11,041; Pooley v. Luco, 72 Fed. 561; Orosco v. Gagliardo, 22 Cal. 83; Barrowcliffe v. La Caisse Generale (New York), 58 How. Prac. 131. Contra, Liverpool, B. & R. P. Nav. Co. v. Agar, 14 Fed. 615.

32 Hervey v. Illinois Midland Ry. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 6,434 (7 Biss. 103); Watson v. Evers, 13 Fed. 194; People v. Hager, 20 Cal. 167; Davis v. Cook, 9 Nev. 134. But see Bell v. Ohio Life Ins. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 1,261.

33 King v. Cornell, 106 U. S. 395, 27 L. ed. 60.

34 O'Conor v. Texas, 202 U. S. 501, 50 L. ed. 1120; affirming State v. O'Connor, 73 S. S. 1041, 96 Tex. 484; New Jersey v. Babcock, Fed. Cas. No. 10,103 (4 Wash. 344).

$ 46. 1 Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 Howard, 163, 12 L. ed. 387; Reynolds v. Adden, 136 U. S. 348, 34 L. ed. 360; Kemna v. Brockhaus, 5 Fed. 762; Winn v. Gilmer, 27 Fed. 817;

McDonald v. Salem Capital Flour Mills Co., 31 Fed. 577, 12 Sawyer, 492; Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash. 546; Lessee of Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Wash. 101, Abb. (U. S.) 211; Burnham V. Rangeley, 1 Woodb. & M. 7.

2 Hammerstein v. Lyne, 200 Fed. 165, 172; Hough v. Societe Electrique Westinghouse de Russie et al., 231 Fed. 341; Stein v. Fleischmann Co., 237 Fed. 679. See supra, § 40. 3 Ibid.

4 Pannill v. Roanoke Times Co., 252 Fed. 910.

5 Rabaud v. D 'Wolf, 1 Paine, 580; Sanger v. Seymour, 25 Fed. 289; State Sav. Ass'n v. Howard, 31 Fed. 433; McDonald v. Salem C. F. Mills Co. 31 Fed. 577; Caldwell v. Firth, C. C. A., 91 Fed. 177; Laws v. Fleming, 177 Fed. 450; Thompson v. Ward, 199 Fed. 861.

6 Gaddie v. Mann, 147 Fed. 955.

his domicile but not conclusive. Voting is not indispensable to establish citizenship.8

Domicile within a State by a citizen of the United States is usually considered to be conclusive evidence of his citizenship thereof. It has been held, that residence alone, which is not shown to be permanent, is not conclusive of citizenship,10 but