54 rEn1cnArJV1t€eVt·o1zrmn, vol. 38.
-R. C'. Foster and A. E. Wilki·n.·2<mV, for defendant. V ,
BREWER, J. This is a motion todismiss for want of jurisdictionl
The facts are these: There are two plaintiffs. The allegation of the pe-
tition is that one plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the state of Arkan-
V sas, and the other a resident and citizen of this state, and that the de-
fendant is a resident and citizen of _the state of Texas. __ It is insisted
that the suit cannot be maintained here, because both plaintiffs are not
residents of this district. Neither is the defendant a resident. The act
of congress of 1887 provides that, where the "jurisdictionis founded only
on 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 plain-
tiff or the defendant? It is insisted that the use of the words "the
plaintiH"’ irnpliesthat all the plaintiffs must be residents, and the mere
fact that but one of two plaintiifs having a joint interest is a resident
does not give this court jurisdiction. In the judiciary act of 1889 the
language in respect to jurisdiction: and place of trial was: " Where an
alien is a party, or the suit is between acitizen of a state where the suit is
brought and a citizen of another state." And in the case of Strawbridgé
V v. Omttss, 3 Cranch, 267, the supreme court, _by Mr. Justice MAasHAr.L,
considered the question as to whether an action could be maintained
where all of the plaintiffs were not citizens of the state in which the
action was brought. He expresses the opinion of the court in these
words: · ‘ V ‘ ‘ V
" The court understands these expressions to mean that each distinct inter-
est should be represented by persons allof whom are entitled to sue or may
be sued in the federal courts; Thatls, that where the interest is joint, each
of the persons concerned in that interest must be competent to sue, or liable
V to be sued,,inthos_e courts." ~ , _ _, _ t e
In the late case of Iron G0. v. Stone, 121 U. S. 631; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep.
1010, that case was cited and approved. It is familiar to all that in
some of the statutes respecting the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and
V providing for removals, the language is "any defendant," or "one having
a separable interest." In otherjcases it is " the plaintiH," or " the de-
t fendant," or "the party." The general, and I think I may say the uni-
form, construction placed upon these last expressions is that they are col-
V lective, and include all who are plaintiffs or defendants, and that each
must possess all the qualifications. Following this line of decision, it
seems to us that all the plaintiflsmust reside inthe district to enable
them to sue, at least in a case in which all are jointly _interested,ina
- single cause of action. In this case the action is on a contract made be-
tween two;-plaintiifs as partners and the defendant.. There is no sepa-
rable controversy, and buta singleinterest. We think, therefore, that
the motion is `well taken, and must be sustained, and the case dismissed.
Itissoordered. ~·i. ~ · . i · ‘ *