was raised to $2,000, and by the Judicial Code of 1911 the amount is fixed at $3,000. At present, therefore, suits between citizens of different states involving less than $3,000 can be brought only in the state courts unless some other ground of federal jurisdiction than diverse citizenship exists. To satisfy the requirement of diversity where there are several plaintiffs or defendants, all the plaintiffs must be of different citizenship from all the defendants; if one of the plaintiffs is from the same state as one of the defendants, the federal courts have no jurisdiction.50 But the fact that a mere formal party having no control of or interest in the suit is a citizen of the same state as the adverse party, does not oust the federal court of jurisdiction if the real parties in interest are citizens of different states.51 It should be noted that, generally, an assignee of a chose in action cannot sue thereon in a federal court unless his assignor could have done so.52 § 32. Who are citizens. It is important to determine who are citizens of a state within the meaning of this and kindred provisions. In 1832 it was held by the Supreme Court that a citizen of the United States (in this case a naturalized citizen) residing in any state of the union, is a citizen of that state, within the meaning of this section.53 But in the famous Dred Scott Case it was held that a free negro whose ancestors had been brought to this country as slaves was not a citizen of a state in which he lived and could not become such.54 This led to the adoption 50-4 Fed. St. Ann. 294; Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267; Case of Sewing Machine Companies, 18 Wall. 553 (removal cases); Peper v. Fordyce, 119 U. S. 469; Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U. S. 395. 51-Wilson v. Oswego Township, 151 U. S. 56; 4 Fed. St. Ann. 293. 54-19 How. 393. of the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." A state is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.55 A territory is not a state, and its citizens are not citizens of a state, within the meaning of this section.56 And the same rule applies to the District of Columbia.57 § 33. Corporations as citizens. A corporation is not a citizen of a state within the meaning of the provision of the Constitution that, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.'' 58 But for judicial purposes a corporation is regarded as a citizen of the state which created it, regardless of the citizenship of its stockholders or members, the location of its principal office, or the field of its operations.59 This is a very important principle for it operates to secure to the federal courts jurisdiction of many cases in which corporations are interested which could not otherwise have been brought in the federal courts. Thus citizens of a state may organize and operate a corporation in every way a local concern, and, by the simple device of securing a charter from some other state, oust the state courts of jurisdiction over many of the controversies in which the corporation may become involved and which 55-Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430; Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48. 56-New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91. 57-Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U. S. 395; 4 Fed. St. Ann. 290. 58-Const. Art. IV, Sec. 2; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Pembina Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181; Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239. 59-Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444. A municipal corporation created by a state within its own limits is, for the purposes of jurisdiction, a citizen of that state. Cowles v. Mercer County, 7 Wall. 118. would not be cognizable by the federal courts but for the fictitious foreign citizenship of the corporation. And it may be that the main object in securing a foreign charter was to secure immunity from suit in the local courts. This doctrine of corporate citizenship was developed gradually. The jurisdiction of the federal courts of suits between a citizen of one state and a corporation chartered by another state, on the ground of diverse citizenship, was first maintained upon the theory that all the persons composing the corporation were individually of different citizenship from the other party to the suit. The members of the corporation were presumed to be citizens of the state by which the corporation was chartered, but this presumption could be rebutted, and upon proof that one or more of the members of the corporation were citizens of the same state as the other party to the suit, the federal jurisdiction was ousted. This was the doctrine laid down by Chief Justice Marshall in 1809.60 In so holding he said: "That invisible, intangible, and artificial being, that mere legal entity, a corporation aggregate, is certainly not a citizen, and consequently cannot sue in the courts of the United States, unless the rights of the members, in this respect, can be exercised in the corporate name. If the corporation be considered as a mere faculty, and not as a company of individuals, who, in transacting their joint concerns, may use a legal name, they must be excluded from the courts of the .union. The court feels itself authorized to look to the character of the individuals who compose the corporation. Being authorized to sue in their corporate name, they could make the averment [of citizenship], and it must apply to the plaintiffs as individuals, because it could not be true as applied to the corporation." This decision was followed by the Supreme Court as late as 1840.61 60-Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch 61. 61-Commercial & Railroad Bank v. Slocomb, 14 Pet. 60. These cases were overruled in 1844 in a case in which it was declared that "a corporation created by and doing business in a particular state is to be deemed to all intents and purposes as a person, although an artificial person, an inhabitant of the same state, for the purpose of its incorporation, capable of being treated as a citizen of that state, as much as a natural person." 62 The present doctrine is well stated by Mr. Justice Gray as follows: 63 "It has become the settled law of this court that, for the purposes of suing and being sued in the courts of the United States, a corporation created by and doing business in a state is, although an artificial person, to be considered as a citizen of the state, as much as a natural person; and there is a conclusive presumption of law that the persons composing the corporation are citizens of the same state with the corporation." § 34. Corporation chartered by two or more states. The question of the citizenship of a corporation for judicial purposes is more complicated where the corporation is chartered by two or more states, as is sometimes true of railroad companies operating in more than one state. In such case the rule seems to be that the citizenship of a corporation chartered by one state is not affected by the fact that it also receives a charter from another state. Thus a citizen of one state may sue in a federal court a corporation chartered by another state, although such corporation is also chartered by the state of which the 62-Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497. 63-Barrow Steamship Co. Kane, 170 U. S. 100. v. And in Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444, Strong, J., said: "A corporation itself can be a citizen of no state in the sense in which the word 'citizen' is used in the constitution of the United States. A suit may be brought in the federal courts by or against a corporation, but in such a case it is regarded as a suit brought by or against the stockholders of the corporation; and, for the purposes of jurisdiction, it is conclusively presumed that all the stockholders are citizens of the state which, by its laws, created the corporation."' plaintiff is a citizen.64 But in such case the dual citizenship of the corporation must not be pleaded. Thus a corporation alleging itself to be incorporated by two states cannot maintain a suit in a federal court against a citizen of one of such states.65 The above principles apply also where corporations of different states are consolidated. It has been held that however closely two corporations of different states may unite their interests, and though they may even have the same stockholders and directors, the separate identity of each as a corporation of the state by which it was created is not thereby lost, and, as such, it may, on the ground of diverse citizenship, sue in a federal court a citizen of the other state by which it is separately incorporated." § 35. Corporation chartered by the United States. The mere fact that a corporation is chartered by the United States does not enable it to sue in the federal courts, and the grant of a general power to sue and be sued in courts of record does not imply capacity to sue and be sued in the United States courts.67 However, a suit brought by or against a corporation created by the United States is a suit arising under the laws of the United States, and Congress may authorize such corporation to sue and be sued in the federal courts.68 But by an act of January 28, 1915, it is provided that "no court of the United States shall have jurisdiction of any action or suit by or against any railroad company upon the ground that said railroad company was incorporated under an act of Congress." 69 64-Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444. 65-Ohio & Mississippi R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black 286; St. Joseph, etc., R. Co., v. Steele, 167 U. S. 659. 66-Nashua, etc., R. Corp. v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 136 U. S. 356. 67-Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch 61. 68-Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738; Pacific Removal Cases, 115 U. S. 1; Matter of Dunn, 212 U. S. 374. 69-38 Stat. L. 804; Supp. 1916, Fed. St. Ann. 137; Bankers Trust |