FARMERS'NAT. BANK V.:M'ELHINNEY.

801

FARMERS' NAT. BANK V. McELHINNEY

et ale

(DistrWt-Court, S. D. Iowa, E. D. June,1890.)
Under Rev. St. U.· S. § 563, giving- district courts jurisdiction "of all suits by or -agai.nst ally association, established under any law providing for ,national banking Bllsociations, within the district for which the court is held," and Act Congo Aug. 18, 1888, § 4, making national banking associations, for the purpose of all actions, citizens of the state wherein they are located, "and in such cases the circuit and district .ceurts shall not have jurisdiction other than such as they would have in cases between individual citizens of the same state, " district courts have no jurisdiction of an action on-a promissory note, brought by a national bank in a district tJ:1.an tJ:1.atin which the bank is located.
AGAINST NATIONAL BANKS.

-At Law. Action on a promissory note, submitted on question of jurisdiction. G. S. Skinner and W. B.Collins, for plaintiff.
SHIRAS,J. The plaintiff corporation is a national bank, carrying on its business at PrincetoJ;l, in the state of Illinois, and the defendants are citizens of Iowa, residing in Louisa county. Under the statutes now in force, has the district court,under any circumstances, jurisdiction of an action by a national bank to recover a debt due upon a promissory note, when sucb action is brought in a district other than that in which the banking association is located? - In section 563 of the Revised Statutes it is provided that the district courts have jurisdiction "of all suits by or against any association, established under any law providing for nation,albanking associations, within the.district for which the court is held." By the act of July 12, 1882, itwas enacted that the jurisdiction for suits by or against any national bank, except af:l to suits between the United States, its officers and agents, and the bank, should be the same, and not other than the jurisdiction by or 'against banks noc organized under the laws of the United States. Sectiqn 4 of the act of August 13, 1888, provided "that all national banking associations, established under the laws of the United States, shall, for the purposes of all actions by or against them, real, personal, and all suits in equity, be deemed citizens oftbe states in which they Itrerespectively located; and insuqh cases the circuit and district courts shall not have jurisdiction other than such as they have in cases between individual citizens of the same state." According to the provisions of this section the plaintiff in this case is to be deemed to be a citizen of the state of illinois, and, the aeo, tion being brought in a district other than that in which the bank is located, the test of jurisdiction in the district court is just the same as it would be in case the plaintiff was a natural person. I do not understand it to be claimed that A. B., a citizen of illinois, can bring an action on a promissory note against C. D., a citizen of Iowa, in the district court of the United States for either district of Iowa. This being so, it seems to me that the act of 1888 was intended to make one rule determine the jurisdiction, or, in other words, it was intended to give to a v.42F.no.14-51

nDERAL REPORTER,

vol. 42.

national bank just the same privilege and right in this particular that is enjoyed by the individual citizen. It is urged in argument that the statute of 1888, by using the words "and in such cases the' circuit and district. courts shall not have risdiction other than," etc., intended, to provide that whenever, by son,Q( diversity of citizenship, the court have jurisdiction,the district court would have jurisdiction, without, however, the limitation aato the amopnt involved. Theargumemt made in support ofthis view is certainly. ingenious; but fails to convince me thatspch, was the of COrlgl'eSS in enacting inquestion. The 'declaration-that "the circuit and district courts shall not have jurisdiction other than "-was not intended to enlarge this jurisdiction oUhe,latter courts, but to bri,ng both courts within the same rule in regartl' to jurisdiction ()Ver stiits by or against national banks; and as dis-, trict are not infrequently clot4ed with circuit court jurisdiction and powers, the intent of thestai\lte' was to declare 'that neither the circuit nor the district court should take jurisdiction ofsuits by or against natidtialbanks,'except under such 61fcumstances as would conferjurisdictiorlupon the partictilat court 'in 'case the suit WRS between natural persons. ' It '1salso urged that the provisions found in section 563 of the Revised 'Statutes, cited by any subsequent enactments, ,arid that the district', court' clio" exercise the jurisdiction therein conferred wherever the action is between a' national bank and a citizen of another state; and that section 4 of the act of 1888 only modifies the the district, COlirt created by the former 'atlt, by limiting it to: action8 between the: bank and a citizen of another state. As I understand clause 15 of section 563 of the Revised Statutes, ii is confined to suits'byi or against national banks 'esta.blished in the district wherein the court is held. Whateft'ect the statutes of 1888 would have upon the jurisdiction of t;bis suit if it had been brought in the district in which the bank is located need 'not be consiaered. The bank is not suing in the district wherein it· is located, but'has come into another district for that purpose;' and, under the act of 1888, it comes as a citizen of the state of Illinois,' and6n ithe qtiestionofjurisdiction can be viewed in that light only; and,as the district court has not jurisdiction of actions to recover debts between individual citizens. it has not jurisdiction of a similar action simply by reason of the fact that the plaintiff is a national bank, located in the state of Illinois. The case muSt therefore be dismissed for want of junsd!Cltion, and it is so ordered.

'i'

ROBJ:SSON II. TAytOR.

803

HmsCHLV; .J.

1.. CASE

THRESHING

MAmI. Co.

(Oi'rcuU OCYWrt, S. D. Iowa, E. D. .Tuue 26, 1890.)
REMOVAL OP'CAUlllIs-Cm:ilENSHIP OJ' CORPORA.TIONS.

A petition for removal of·g calise by a corporation of one state sued in the courts of anothe.r ·lItate .is not suflloient unless it, alleges, in addition to the usual averments as to .oitizenship, thatlt is a non-resident of the state in whioh it issued. . '

At Law.' On motionto·i'emlirid.' The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Wisconsin. It was sued in the district Court of this state, in and for Cedar countYi service of process being made, under section 2613 of the Code of Iowa, upon an agent. The cause was removed to this court upon a petition which avel'red the necessartcitizenship of the parties, but which contained DO avel'ment that defendant was a non-resident of the state of Iowa. Plaintiff moves to remand because of the absence of this averment. W. J. Roberta, for plaintiff. Oraig,McCrary & Craig, for defendant.
MILLER, Justice. A corporation is a citizen of the state under whose laws it is organized. For the purpose of suing and being sued, it may become a resident of each state in which it does business under state law. The rule, under the removal act of August 13, 1888, as to natural persons, is applicable to corporations. When a corporation of one state is sued in the courts of another state, a petition for removal by it is not sufficient unless it alleges, in addition to the usual averments as to citiof the state in which it is sued. The zenship, that it isa motion to remand is sustained.

RoBINSON

et ale

tI. TAYLOR.

(OCrcuu oourt, N. D. M1.BII'£BBippf., E. D. .Tune 18, 1890.) L
On motion for the appointment of a reoeiver of the property of a deoedent in possession of one olaiming to be his son and heir, complainants alleged that they were the next of kin and collateral heirs of decedent. who died without lineal heirs, and that defendant was his illegitimate son. Defendant answered that he was dece. son and heir, and there was evidence showing tbat decedent had lived for many years with defendant's mother, recognizing her as his wife, and de. fendant as his son. After living thus together, defendant's mother entered into illicit with another man, and was repudiated by decedent, and afterwards both he and the woman stated that they had never been married. Decedent deeded:all his property to defendant, and the deeds were attacked by complainants as invalid. .Bflld that, as defendant could Buffer no great harm by holding that complainants had established a prima jac£e right to the estate, a receiver would be appointed until final hearing on the merits of the case. ;&. .8AKB. In such case, being shown to be competeAt. to manage the estate.wu appointed receiver on givmg bond.
REC1liIVERS-Al'PoINTJIENT.