3 Connor v. Vicksburg etc. R. Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 273.

4 Purcell v. British etc. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 465.

5 Norris v. Atlas Steamship Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 279.

6 Reinstadler v. Reeves, 33 Fed. Rep. 308.

7 Miller-Magee Co., v. Carpenter, 34 Fed. Rep. 443; Reinstadler v. Reeves, 33 Fed. Rep. 308.

§ 83 d. Application of rule to corporations.-Under the Act of 1887 as corrected by the Act of Aug. 13, 1888, a New York corporation having its principal office in that state and doing business in Illinois, cannot be sued in the Federal court of Illinois. A corporation is not a resident of a district so as to be suable therein without its consent under this act merely because it has an office and agent in the district for the transaction of its business. So a Connecticut corporation having an office and agent in the southern district of California cannot be sued there by a citizen of Mexico. So, a company incorporated under the laws of a foreign country, having offices in New York and its piers for the lading and unlading of cargoes in New Jersey, but whose monetary operations are conducted in New York, is not suable in New York under the Act of 1887, sec. 1. A corporation created by one State is not a resident of another State in which it does business within the meaning of the act defining the district in which suit shall be brought. That all the directors of a corporation reside in the State, and its annual elections are held there does not make a foreign corporation a resident. Corporations are citizens and residents of the State under the laws of which they were created, and cannot acquire a residence in another State within the meaning of the Act of March 3, 1887.7

1 Preston v. Fire Exting. M. Co., 20 Ohio L. J. 423.

2 Bensigner S. A. C. Register Co., v. National Cash Register Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 8: Fales v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 673; Henning v. West. Union Tel. Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 97.

3 Denton v. International Co., 13 Sawy. 355.

4 Hohorst v. Hamburg-Amer. P. Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 273.

5 National Typographic Co. v. New York Typographic Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 711.

6 Filli v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 65: Fales v. Railway Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 673.

7 Fales v. Chicago M. & St. P. R. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 673; McBribe v Grand De Tour Plow Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 162; Booth v. St. Louis Fire Eng. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 1.

§ 83 e. Contrary view.-The rulings, however, in the various circuits are not harmonious, for it has been held that where a corporation comes into a judicial district of another State and there carries on business, it is an inhabitant of said district, under the act of 1887, and is suable in the circuit court of the United States of said district.1 Where plaintiff is a citizen of Mexico, and defendant is a Texas railroad corporation, whose principal office is in the eastern district of Texas, and whose railroad extends into the western district, in which it has agents to transact its ordinary business, by the Revised Statutes of Texas, article 1198, subdivision 21, defendant may be sued in any county into which its railroad extends, and process may be served on its local agent (art. 1223); suit may be brought in the western district. A railroad company, whose road extends from Atlanta, Ga., through South Carolina to Charlotte, N. C., the office of its division superintendent being in Atlanta, may be sued in the Georgia court by a citizen of Georgia, for personal injuries received while traveling on its road in South Carolina, especially where it appears that the train on which the accident happened was being operated under the superintendent's control. The act of 1887 does not oust said courts of jurisdiction of a suit against a foreign corporation which has agreed, as a condition of the right to transact business in the State, to submit to be sued there. *

1 Riddle v. New York L. E. & W. R. Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 290. See Hirschl v. J. I. Case T. M. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 803.

2 Zambrino v. Galveston H. & S. A. R. Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 449.

3 Hills v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 660.

4 Consolidated Store Service Co. v. Lamson Consolidated Store Service Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 833

§ 84. Suits for internal revenue taxes, where to be brought.-Taxes accruing under any law providing internal revenue may be sued for and recovered either in the district where the liability for such tax occurs, or in the district where the delinquent resides. (Rev. Stats. sec. 733.)

Note. A suit for taxes cannot be brought in any other district than where the tax accrues, or where the defend

ant resides. (U. S. v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 10 Ben. 144.)

§ 85. When land lies in different districts of same State.-Any suit of a local nature, at law or in equity, where the land or other subject-matter of a fixed character lies partly in one district and partly in another, within the same State, may be brought in the circuit or district court of either district; and the court in which it is brought shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide it, and to cause mesne or final process to be issued and executed, as fully as if the said subject-matter were wholly within the district for which such court is constituted. (Rev. Stats. sec. 742.)

§ 86. Suits not of a local nature in States containing several districts.When a State contains more than one district, every suit not of a local nature in the circuit or district courts thereof, against a single defendant, inhabitant of such State, must be brought in the district where he resides; but if there are two or more defendarts residing in different districts of the State, it may be brought in either district, and a duplicate writ may be issued against the defendants, directed to the marshal of any other district in which any defendant resides. The clerk issuing the duplicate writ shall indorse thereon that it is a true copy of a writsued out of the court of the proper district; and such original and duplicate writs, when executed and returned into the office from which they issue, shall constitute and be proceeded on as one suit; and upon any judgment or decree rendered therein, execution may be issued, directed to the

marshal of any district in the same State. (Rev. Stats. sec. 740.)

Note. This section applies to suits in equity as well as actions at law (Winter v. Ludlow, 3 Phila. 464); but has no application where defendant resides as fully in all the districts of the State as in any one of them, as in case of a corporation. (Locomotive Co. v. Railway Co., 10 Blatchf. 292.) If defendant is merely a nominal party, the circuit court of that district has no jurisdiction, and the action must be brought in the district court. (Sackett Harb. Bk. v. Barry, 9 Blatchf. 154.) So a stockholder is a nominal party in a suit against the directors to hold them personally liable. (Sackett Harb. Bk. v. Barry, 9 Blatchf. 154.)

§ 87. Suits of a local nature in States containing several districts.-In suits of a local nature, where the defendant resides in a different district in the same State from that in which the suit is brought, the plaintiff may have original and final process against him, directed to the marshal of the district in which he resides. (Rev. Stats. sec. 741.)

§ 88. Rule in particular States.-IN GEORGIA. All suits not of a local nature in the circuit and district courts for the southern district of Georgia, against a single defendant inhabitant of said State, must be brought in the division of the district where he resides; but if there are two or more defendants residing in different divisions of the district, such suits may be brought in either division. All issues of fact in said suits shall be tried at a term of the court held in the division where the suit is so brought. (21 U. S. Stats. 63; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 508.)

IN ILLINOIS. That all civil suits not of a local nature, and criminal prosecutions, must be brought in the division of the said northern district of Illinois where the defendant or defendants reside or the offense is committed; but if there are two or more defendants in civil suits residing in the different divisions or districts, the action may be brought in either in which either of the defendants may reside. When the defendant is a non-resident of the district, action may be brought in either division of said district wherein the defendant may be found. (24 U. S. Stats. sec. 442.)

IN INDIANA. In the district of Indiana all actions of which the circuit and all district courts have jurisdiction may be instituted in said courts, respectively, held at New Albany and Evansville, in the first instance, by filing the proper pleadings or other papers in the offices of the deputy clerks performing the duties of clerks of said courts respectively; and all proper and lawful process shall issue therefrom in the same manner as from other circuit and district courts in like cases. (Rev. Stats. sec. 743.)

IN IOWA.-In the district of Iowa all suits not of a local nature in the district court, against a single defendant, inhabitant of such State, must be brought in the division of the district where he resides; but if there are two or more defendants residing in different divisions of the district, such suits may be brought in either division, and duplicate writs may be sent to the other defendants. The clerk issuing the duplicate writ shall indorse thereon that it is a true copy of a writ sued out of a court in the proper division of the district;