proceeded against by indictment or otherwise wit in the division of said district where the alleg offense or offenses shall be committed, and sha have his or her trial at a term of the said cou held in said division, unless for cause shown t judge shall otherwise direct; and one grand a one petit jury only shall be summoned and ser in both said courts at each term thereof; and juro shall be selected and drawn from the division the said district in which they reside, and in whic the terms of the said circuit and district courts which they are summoned are held. (20 U. Stats. 175; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 375.)

MISSISSIPPI. That all crimes and offenses her tofore committed within the counties of Boliva and Sunflower shall be prosecuted, tried, and d termined in the same manner and with the sam effect as if this act had not been passed. (A proved April 11, 1888; 25 U. S. Stats. 84.)

MISSOURI. All offenses hereafter committed either of said divisions shall be cognizable and i dictable within the division where submitted; an all grand and petit jurors summoned for service each division shall be inhabitants thereof. And a offenses heretofore committed within said distri shall be prosecuted and tried as if this act had n passed. (20 U. S. Stats. 263; 1 Sup. Rev. Stat 393.)

All offenses con OHIO, NORTHERN DISTRICT. mitted in either of the subdivisions shall be co nizable and indictable within said division. (2 U. S. Stats. 101; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 338.)

OHIO-All prosecutions for crimes or offens hereafter committed in either of the subdivision

shall be cognizable within such division; and all prosecutions for crimes or offenses heretofore committed within either of said counties taken as aforesaid from the northern district, or committed in the southern district as heretofore constituted, shall be commenced and proceeded with as if this act had not been passed. (21 U. S. Stats. 63; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 508.)

TENNESSEE. All prosecutions for crimes or offenses hereafter committed in either of the subdivisions shall be cognizable within such division; and all prosecutions for crimes or offenses heretofore committed within said county taken as aforesaid from the middle district, or committed in the eastern district as hitherto constituted, shall be commenced and proceeded with as if this act had not been passed. (21 U. S. Stats. 175; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 347.)

TEXAS. And all prosecutions in either of said districts for offenses against the laws of the United States shall be tried in that division of the district to which process for the county in which said offenses are committed is by said section required to be returned. And all writs and recognizances in said prosecutions shall be returned to that division in which said prosecutions by this act are to be tried. (21 U. S. Stats. 198; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 551.)

Note.-The circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Texas had jurisdiction to try defendant for the offense of murder committed prior to the passage of the Act of 1889, in the Public Land Strip, no prosecution for the offense having been commenced before the act was passed. (Cook v. United States, 138 U. S. 157.)

§ 83. Civil actions brought only in district where defen ant is inhabitant.-And no civil suit sh be brought before either of said courts against a person by any original process or proceeding in a other district than that whereof he is an inha tant; but where the jurisdiction is founded only the fact that the action is between citizens of d ferent States, suits shall be brought only in t district of the residence of either the plaintiff the defendant. (Cl. 4, Act of March 3, 1875, amended by Act of March 3, 1887; Aug. 13, 188 See Rev. Stats. sec. 739.) 25 U. S. Stats. 433.

§ 83 a. Civil actions and suits, where brough -When the jurisdiction depends upon the existence of Federal question, or upon grounds other than the citiz ship of the parties, the defendant must be sued in the d trict of his domicile; but when the jurisdiction deper upon the citizenship of the parties, the suit may brought in the district in which either the plaintiff or defer ant resides. So an alien, an inhabitant of a foreign cou try temporarily within the jurisdiction of a Federal cou cannot be sued there by citizens of that place, under t Act of 1888.2 A suit cannot be maintained in the distr of New Jersey against the commissioner of patents, who official residence is in the District of Columbia. 3 A cuit court in Missouri has no jurisdiction of an acti against a corporation created by the State of Mississip and having its principal office there for damages for a amounting to a violation of the Interstate Commerce La though defendant has an office and an agent in Missou and plaintiff resides there, and though the petition sho a cause of action at common law. A suit to enforce lien or trust may be brought in the district where t property is situated and where some of the defenda claiming an equitable lien thereon reside, although neith the plaintiffs nor the defendant who owns the property side in that district.5 An action by a citizen of Ohio

enforce a claim to property in Vermont, against citizens of that State and of New York and Maine, is properly brought in the United States circuit court for the district of Vermont, under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1887. The provisions of the act of Congress prescribing the district in which a suit shall be brought do not apply to cases removed from State courts.7

1 St. Louis, V. & T. H. R. Co. v. Terre Haute & I. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 385; Rawley v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 305.

2 Meyers v. Herrera, 41 Fed. Rep. 65.

3 Illingsworth v. Atha, 42 Fed. Rep. 141.

4 Connor v. Vicksburg & M. R. Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 273.

5 Langdon v. Central R. & Bkg. Co. Ga. 2 L. R. A. 120.

6 Carpenter v. Talbot, 33 Fed. Rep. 537.

7 Crocker Nat. Bank v. Pagenstecher, 44 Fed. Rep. 705; Fales v. Chicago M. & St. P. R. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 673.

§ 83 b. Jurisdiction depending only on adverse citizenship. -Where Federal jurisdiction depends only on adverse citizenship of parties, under the act of Congress of March 3, 1887, the plaintiff may sue defendant, either in the Federal district in which he resides, or in that in which the defendant resides; the act confines him to such districts. Where the defendants are residents of different States, and jurisdiction exists on the ground of citizenship only, the suit may be brought in the district where either of the defendants resides. When jurisdiction is founded on any of the grounds specially mentioned in the act of 1875, as amended, except diverse citizenship, the suit may be brought in the district of defendant's residence; but where founded solely on the ground of adverse citizenship, it shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either party. A citizen of one State can sue in the Federal court in the district of his residence a corporation of another State, where jurisdiction depends only on citizenship. Where plaintiff is a citizen of Massachusetts, and defendant a corporation created by the law of Rhode Island, as well as by the law of Massachusetts, the suit may be brought in the Federal court for the Rhode Island district.5 Under the act of 1888, an action by a non-resident against a partnership, whose members are residents of different States and districts, may be brought in the district of the residence of DESTY REMOVALS.-12.

one of them. Where jurisdiction depends on citizenship, and there are several plaintiffs who are jointly interested, they must all be residents of the district in which suit is brought, if it is not brought in the district of the defendant's residence.7

1 Gavin v. Vance, 33 Fed. Rep. 84; Fales v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 673; Short v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 114; Bank of Winona v. Avery, 34 Fed. Rep. 81.

2 Rawitzer v. Wyatt, 40 Fed. Rep. 609.

3 McCormick v. Walthers, 134 U. S. 41.

4 Bostwick v. American Finance Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 897; Rawley v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 305.

5 Page v. Fall River W. & P. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 257.

6 Rawitzer v. Wyatt, 40 Fed. Rep. 609.

7 Smith v. Lyon, 38 Fed. Rep. 53.

83 c. Defendant can be sued only in the district where he is inhabitant.-A Federal circuit court cannot take cognizance of a suit against a party, in a district of which he is not an inhabitant, unless he consents or waives his right to object, except where the jurisdiction of the circuit court is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different States.2 The fact that a railroad company keeps an office and agent in a Federal judicial district outside of the State which chartered it, and in which are its road and chief office, will not make it an inhabitant of such district. The right of a defendant to object to being sued in a district of which he is not an inhabitant is personal to himself, and he may insist upon or waive that right as he chooses.1 The privilege accorded to a defendant, to be sued only in the district of which he is an inhabitant, is waived by filing a general appearance and answering to its merits.5 Even if the act confers a privilege merely, it is not waived by a formal appearance entered on the first rule-day, followed on the second rule-day by an assertion of the right to be sued only in the district of his residence. Where defendant is not an inhabitant of the district wherein the suit is brought, he may assert his objection to being served out of the district of his residence by demurrer as well as by motion to dismiss.7

1 Yuba County v. Pioneer Gold Mining Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 183.

2 Halstead v. Manning, 34 Fed. Rep. 565.