( i O A S E S ‘
, ARGUED AND DETERMINED
( m rim
(v_ • `• • L O O
eiuxtzd Stutzs Glncmt aud glnztrxtt Qlmntn. r
DENToN *0. INTERNATIONAL C0. or Mnxrco. ·
(Ctrouit Court, S. D. Oalzfornia. July 30, 1888.) -
Coun·rs—Fmnmv..u. Cmou1·r·-J unrsnrorion-—Oi·r1zm:sn1e—Conronsr1o1<s.
Under act Cong., March 3, 1887. providing that the United States circuit
courts shall have original cognizance of a controversy between citizens of a
state and foreign states, citizens or subjects, but that no civil suit shall be
brought before such courts except in the district whereof the defendant is
an inhabit nt, a citizen of Mexico cannot sue a Connecticut corporation in
· the Unitedl States circuit court for the Southern district of California, al-
though the corporation has an oiiice and managing agent in that district.
At Law. _ Ou motion to quash service of summons, and on demurrer
to defendantis preliminary answer in the nature of a plea in abatement.
· Stephen M. White, George J. Denis, and Mace Loewenthal, for plaintiff,
cited Harold v. Mining Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 529. (
George Fuller, for defendant. .
» Defendant is an inhabitant of the state of Connecticut, and not of the state
of California. Railroad Oo. v._Koontz, 104 U. S.5; St. Clair v. Cow; 106
U. S. 350.1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 354; Railroad Co. v. Alabama, 107 U. S. 581, 2
Sup. Ct. Rep. 432; Insurarwe Oo v. Woodworth, 111 U. S. 138, 4 Sup. Ct.,
Rep. 364; U. S. v. Telephone Oo., 29 Fed.Rep. 17. Plaintiff is a citizen of a
foreign state, and is not a citizen ofa state, in the sense in which the words
are used in the constitution and the judiciary acts. Such citizen of a state
must be a citizen of the United States. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393. lA
citizen of a state is not a citizen of the United States unless he has the quali-
fications of the latter by birth or naturalization. U. S. v. Oruikshank, 92
U. S. 542; Railroad Co. v. K oontz, 104 U. S. 12. And even a citizen of the
United States, who is a citizen of the District of Columbia, (Hepburn v. EllQ
zey, 2 Cranch, 445; Barney v. Baltimore City, 6 Wall. 280,) or of a territory
of the United States, (New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91,) is not a citizen
of a state. That the words "citizens of different states," in the proviso re-
lating to the district in which suit may be brought, at the end of section 1 of
the act of March 3. 1887, do not comprehend " foreign citizens," (or citizens
of ."foreign states,") is apparent from the use of both terms in the previous
_ v.36r.no.1—1 . i v