DENTON v; rN*rEnN;u·1oN1lr. co. 3
jects, in which the matter in dispute exceeds. exclusive of interest and costs,
the sum or value aforesaid.   * * ·*‘ Butno person shall be arrested in one
district for trial in another in any civil action befo1·e a circuit or district court;
and no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any per- r
son by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that
whereof he is an inhabitant; but where the jurisdiction is founded only_ on u
the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be
brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the de-
fendant. * * *" 24 U. S. St. 553.
· So far as this section relates to the district in which a civil suit in a
circuit or district court may be originally brought, its plain meaning, as
held by Mr.,Justice Fmnn, in Wilson. v. Telegraph Ch., 34 Fed. Rep. 561,
is this: V »
“That such suit, where the jurisdiction is foundedupon any of the causes
mentioned in the section except the citizenship of the parties in different
states, must be brought in the district of which the defendant is an inhabit·
ant. But where such jurisdiction is founded solely upon the fact that the
parties are citizens of different states, the suit may be brought in the district
in which either the plaintilf or the defendant resides." "
The present is not a suit between citizens of different states, for the
plaintiff is in the complaint alleged to be a citizen of the republic of
Mexico, and the defendant to be a citizen of the state of Connecticut. It
is therefore a suit between an alien and a citizen of a state, and, as has
been seen, can only be brought in the district of which the defendant is
an inhabitant. That district, according to the averments of the com-
plaint, is not the Southern district of California, but the district of Con-
necticut. The fact alleged, thatthe defendant is carrying on its char-
tered business within the state of California, and has a managing agent
within this judicial district, does not constitute it an inhabitant of this
district. V As both the charter of defendant and the laws of California
permit this to be done, defendant may undoubtedly be sued in the courts
of California. The extension of the operations of the corporation, how- .
ever, beyond the limits of the state of its creation, does not constitute it
an inhabitant of every district in which it may do business. It can
have but one residence or habitat, and that is the place where its prin-
cipal business is done. " A corporation," said the supreme court in
Railroad Oo. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 12, "may for the purpose of suit be
said to be born where by law it is created and organized, and to reside
where, by or under the authority of its charter, its principal oiiice is.
A corporation, therefore, created by and organized under the laws of a.
particular state, and having its principal oiiice there, is, under the con~
stitution and laws, for the purpose of suing and being sued, a citizenof
that state, possessing all the rights, and having all the powers, its char-
ter confers. It cannot migrate nor change its residence without the con-
sent, expressed or implied, of its state; but it may transact business
wherever its charter allows, unless prohibited by local laws." As the
complaint itself shows that defendant at the time of the bringing of this
action wasnot an inhabitantof this judicial district, the summons should
be quashed, and the action dismissed; and it isso ordered.