81 FEDERAL amronrmn.
this court, did not contain the bills filed in the several causes in the state
court, therecords being copied and brought here before the bills were
Bled. But by an agreement in writing, signed by counsel for the plain-
tiffs, and for the defendants, and filed at the hearing of this motion, the
bill is made part of the record in each cause. The record, as thus made
up, including the petition for removal, fails to show the citizenship of
the petitionersat the time .the suits were commenced. It is well settled
that the citizenship of the parties, which gives jurisdiction to this court,
must be shown to have existed at the time of commencing the suit, and
at the time of iiling the petition for removal. Railroad Co. v. Swan, 111
U. S. 379-381, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510; Gibson v. Bruce, 108 U. S. 561,
2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 873; Akers v. Akers, 117 U. S. 197, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep.
669. If no other ground existed than the failure of the record and pe-
tition to show the citizenship of theparties at the time thesuits were in-
stituted, and when the application for removal was made, the court is
of opinion that for this reason the causes should be remanded. Second.
Another ground for the motion to remand is that the defendant Frederick
W. Huidekoper, who is one of the directors 'of the Virginia, Tennessee
& Carolina Steel & Iron Company, and who is jointly sued with said
company and the other directors of said company, is not a citizen of any
_ state, but is a citizen of the District of Columbia, and that the suits are
` therefore not between citizens of different states, and are therefore not
removable. F‘States of the Union are the political bodies referred to in
the extension of the judicial power of the United States to controversies
‘between the citizens of different states} The territories ,0f the United
States are not such states, and the District of Columbia is not a state,
and hence citizenship in neither will suffice to give jurisdiction.? Spear,
Fed. Jud. 144, 145; Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445; Corporation of
1 Neg: Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91; Barneylv. Baltimore City, 6 Wall.
28 . r
  Counsel for defendants contend that said Huidekoper, though one of`
the directors of the Virginia, Tennessee & Carolina Steel & Iron Corn-
. pany, is not a real, but only a nominal, party to these suits; that the
only real defendant in the controversy is the Virginia, Tennessee & Caro-
lina Steel & Iron Company; that all of the directors of said company are
nominal parties; and, if not nominal, their liability is several and sep-
arable, and is not joined with that of the said company of which they
are directors. The court cannot adopt this view. The bill in each suit
seeks relief against the said Virginia, Tennessee & Carolina Steel & Iron
Company, and all of the directors. The bill in each suit states: _
“Your orator is advised that he has the right to have the said contract of
__ subscription annulled and rescinded; to recover from the said company and -
the said directors the said sums paid by him on account _0f said stock, with in-
terest on each payment from the time of its payment, and to have the estate
of and debts due the said company in this state subjected to their payment. "
The prayer of each bill is: r
M " That upon `a hearing of the cause your honor will adjudge, order, and do-
cree said. contract of subscription to be null and void; that said company and