is authorized to sue to recover damages for herself and her children because of the death of her husband, the citizenship of the widow is alone to be considered. The citizenship of the next friend or guardian ad litem of an infant,10 of a lunatic,11 or of a married woman,12 is disregarded. But where the guardian of an infant, 18 or the curator or committee of a lunatic,1 sues in his own name under the authority of a State statute, his citizenship, not that of his ward, is the test of the right of removal. Notwithstanding a State statute providing that a non-resident could not act as administrator; it was held, that an administrator there appointed was not estopped from showing, upon an application for a removal, that he was a citizen of another State.15 When a mortgage bondholder sued for a foreclosure, in behalf of himself and all the other bondholders, only 120 bonds having been issued ; and the latter, who had not been made parties, the complaint alleging that some, but not all, were unknown to the plaintiff, intervened and prayed the same relief; it was held, that all such bondholders were indispensable parties, and in determining the jurisdiction of the court, must be considered to be upon the same side as the plaintiff, thus compelling a dismissal of the suit.16 In an action for the assignment of dower, brought in a State court by a citizen of Illinois, it appeared that of two defendants who were in possession of the property, one, who was a citizen of New York, held the legal title as trustee for his co-defendant, a citizen of Illinois, though it did not appear that he was author Ohio v. Columbus & Xenia R. Co., 9 Kever v. Phila. & R. C. & I. Co., 234 Fed. 814. 10 Williams v. Ritchey, Fed. Cas. No. 17,734 (3 Dill. 406); Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. 650; Dodd v. Ghiselin, 27 Fed. 405; Voss V. Neineber, 68 Fed. 947. Contra, In re McClean's Estate, 26 Fed. 49. 11 Wiggins v. Bethune, 29 Fed. 51; Wilcoxen v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 116 Fed. 444. 12 Ruckman v. Palisade Land Co., 1 Fed. 367; Meade v. Walker, 15 Wis. 499. 13 Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. Eckman, 187 U. S. 429, 47 L. ed. 245. 14 Wiggins v. Bethune, 29 Fed. 51; Stout v. Rigney, 107 Fed. 545, 46 C. C. A. 459. 15 McDuffie v. Montgomery, 128 Fed. 105; Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Bobo, 233 Fed. 708. 16 Mangels v. Donau Brewing Co., 53 Fed. 513; distingushing Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61, 29 L. ed. 329. ized to represent his interests in the property for the purposes of the suit. It was held, that the beneficiary was a necessary party, and, being a citizen of the same State as plaintiff, was not entitled to a removal; and that, the controversy not being separable, the trustee, although a citizen of another State could not sustain a petition for removal.17 § 45. Controversies to which aliens are parties. The Judicial Code gives the District Courts original jurisdiction of all suits of a civil nature, at common-law or inequity, where the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of three thousand dollars and "is between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens, or subjects." A District Court of the United States has original jurisdiction of an action by an alien against a citizen and resident of the State where the suit is brought; 2 but not, except perhaps in patent, copyright and trade-mark cases, and under special statutes of an action by an alien against a citizen of another State who does not reside within the district.5 A citizen of the United States cannot without his consent be sued by an alien in any district which he does not inhabit. An action by an alien against a citizen of a State who is or at the time the alleged action accrued was a civil officer of the United States, when the latter is a non-resident of the State where the suit was brought, may be removed. A corporation chartered by or under the laws of any of the United States cannot without its consent be sued by an alien in any district out of the State where it is 17 Rand v. Walker, 117 U. S. 340, 29 L. ed. 907. § 45. 1 § 24, 36 St. at L. 1087. 2 Von Thodorovich v. Franz Josef Beneficial Ass'n, (E. D. Pa.) 154 Fed. 911; Suravitz v. Pristasz, C. C. A., 201 Fed. 335. 3 See infra, § 62. 4 Ibid. 5 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Gonzales, 151 U. S. 496, 507, 38 L. ed. 248, 252; Fribourg v. Pullman Co. (E. D. N. C.), 176 Fed. 981; McAulay v. Moody (D. Or.), 185 Fed. 144; Colosmov. Pitts burgh & L. E. R. Co., 210 Fed. 550; infra, § 61. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. Code 34. See Jackson v. William Kenefick Co., 233 Fed. 130; Colosmo v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co., 210 Fed. 550. An alien can maintain a suit in the federal courts against a citizen only in the district of his residence, unless defendant waives his personal privilege to be sued only in such district. Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Washko, C. C. A., 2nd Ct., 231 Fed. 42. 8 incorporated even if it operates a railroad in the district where it is sued.9 The fact that the alien is a resident of the district where the suit is brought does not give the court jurisdiction of such a case 10 Where no Federal question was involved, it was held that, when the defendants are citizens of different districts, they cannot be sued by an alien in any one of them.11 This rule does not apply to an action to recover the penalty for the importation of contract labor under the Immigration Act of February 20, 1907.12 Such a suit may be brought in thé dístrict where the alien was to perform the labor.18 15 An alien who has no residence within the United States may be sued by a citizen of one of the United States in the Federal court in any district where he can be served with process.14 So it has been held in suits to enjoin the infringement of patents,1 as well as in other cases; and even when the defendant is an alien corporation, over which the State statute deprives its court of jurisdiction; 16 provided that it transacts business within the State, but not otherwise; 17 and also when the plaintiff is a citizen and resident of a different State from that where the suit is brought.18 A non-resident alien defendant may remove a suit involving the jurisdictional amount, when all the parties on the opposite 8 Adzenoska v. Erie R. Co., 210 Fed. 571; Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Washko, C. C. A., 231 Fed. 42; Yanuszauckas v. Mallory S. S. Co., C. C. A., 232 Fed. 132; Vitkus v. Clyde S. S. Co., 232 Fed. 288; Lucksinger v. Phila. & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 232 Fed. 292; Best v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 243 Fed. 789; Budris v. Consolidation Coal Co., 251 Fed. 673. 9 Adzenoska v. Erie R. Co., 210 Fed. 571. 10 Miller v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (D. Mass.), 147 Fed. 771. 11 McAulay v. Moody (D. Or.), 185 Fed. 144. 12 34 St. at L. 900, Comp. St. § 4250. 13 Tomkins v. Paterson, 238 Fed. 879. 14 Re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653, 37 L. ed. 1211; Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 42 L. ed. 964; Carp v. Queen Ins. Co., 168 Fed. 782; Vestal v. Ducktown Sulphur & Iron Co., 210 Fed. 375; H. G. Baker & Bro. v. Pinkham et al., 211 Fed. 728. Contra, Meyer v. Herrera (W. D. Texas, San Antonio Division), 41 Fed. 65. 15 United Shoe Mach. Co. v, Duplessis Independent Shoe Mach. Co. (D. Mass.), 133 Fed. 930. 16 Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 42 L. ed. 964. 17 Tierney v. Helvetia Swiss Fire Ins. Co., 163 Fed. 82. 18 Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 42 L. ed. 964; Jarowski v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., C. C. A., 182 Fed. 320. side of the controversy are citizens and residents of the same State of the United States and when the plaintiffs reside in the district where the suit is brought; 19 and it has been held when they reside elsewhere.20 A resident alien cannot when no Federal question is involved.21 It has been held, that when a nonresident alien is joined as a defendant with a non-resident citizen of a different State from that of a resident plaintiff, they may jointly remove the case if the jurisdictional amount is involved; 22 but this cannot be done when the plaintiff is not a resi dent of the State where the suit is brought.23 A suit by a State in its own court against an alien cannot be removed.24 The authorities are in conflict as to whether a defendant, who is a citizen and resident of a different State from that where the suit is instituted, can remove an action brought by an alien in the State court. The preponderance of the more recent authorities holds that he cannot, whether the alien is a resident,25 or non 19 Cooley v. McArthur, 35 Fed. 372. v. Morel (D. Nebraska), 88 Fed. 801; Best v. Great Northern Ry Co., 243 Fed. 789 (where the alien lived in the state where the suit was brought). 23 Carp v. Queen Ins. Co. (W. D. Mo.) 168 Fed. 782. Contra, Ladew V. Tennessee Copper Co. (S. D. Tenn.), 179 Fed. 245, 256. 24 O'Conor v. Texas, 202 U. S. 501. 25 Kamenicky v. Catterall Printing Co. (S. D. N. Y.), 188 Fed. 400 (in which the author was counsel); Odhner v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (S. D. New York) 188 Fed. 507; Sagara v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (D. Col.) 189 Fed. 220. These cases follow the analogy of Ex parte W sner, 203 U. S. 449, 51 L. ed. 264. See, also, Petrocokino v. Stuart, Fed. Cas. No. 11,041; Matter of Tobin, 214 U. S. 506, 53 L. ed. 1061. Contra, Uhle v. Burnham, (S. D. N. Y.) 42 Fed. 1 (residence not shown); Stalker v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., (S. D. Cal.) 81 Fed. 989 (residence not shown); resident,26 of the State where the suit is brought. Where an alien is a party to a suit in a District Court of the United States, an objection to the jurisdiction founded upon residence may be waived.27 Where the suit is originally brought in the Federal court, the plaintiff by suing makes such a waiver and the defendant is the only person who can object to the jurisdiction on this ground.28 Where the suit is originally brought in the State court, the defendant by the removal consents to the jurisdiction of the court of the United States and the plaintiff alone can make such an objection.29 A District Court of the United States, where no Federal question is involved, has no jurisdiction of an action brought by an alien to enforce a chose in action that has been assigned to him, unless his assignor could have maintained the suit upon the ground of a difference of citizenship.3 The District Courts of the United States can obtain no jurisdiction, either originally or by removal, by reason of a diversity of citizenship, when the controversy is between two aliens; Smellie v. Southern Pac. Co., (N. D. Cal) 197 Fed. 641 (residence not shown); Keating v. Pennsylvania Co., 245 Fed. 155. 26 Harold v. Iron Silver Min. Co., (D. Col.) 33 Fed. 529; Mahopoulus v. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co., (W. D. Mo.) 167 Fed. 165; Bagenas v. Southern Pac. Co., (N. D. Cal.) 180 Fed. 887; Hall v. Great Northern Ry. Co., (D. Montana) 197 Fed. 488. Contra, Sherwood v. Newport News & M. Val. Co., (W. D. Tenn.) 55 Fed. 1; Creagh v. Eq. Life Assur. Soc., (D. Wash.) 83 Fed. 849; Morris v. Clark Constr. Co., (D. S. C.) 140 Fed. 756; Iowa Lillooet Gold Min. Co. v. Bliss, (N. D. Ia.) 144 Fed. 446; Barlow v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., (N. D. Ia.) 172 Fed. 513; H. J. Decker Jr. & Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., (N. D. Ala.) 189 Fed. 224; Wind River Lumber Co. v. Frankfort Marine, Accident 31 & Plate Glass Ins. Co., C. C. A., 196 Fed. 340. 27 Infra, § 62a. 28 H. J. Decker Jr. & Co. V. Southern Ry. Co., 189 Fed. 224. See infra, § 62a. 29 H. J. Decker Jr. & Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 189 Fed. 224. See infra, § 62a. 30 Tierney v. Helvetia Swiss Fire Ins. Co., (E. D. N. Y.) 163 Fed. 82. See infra, § 63. 31 Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dallas, 12, 1 L. ed. 720; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 46, 2 L. ed. 545; King v. Cornell, 106 U. S. 395, 27 L. ed. 60; Walton v. McNeil, Fed. Cas. No. 17,134; Prentiss v. Brennan, Fed. Cas. No. 11,385 (2 Blatchf. 162); Rateau v. Bernard, Fed. Cas. No. 11,579 (3 Blatchf. 244); Hinckley v. Byrne, Fed. Cas. No. 6,510 (1 Deady, 224); Petrocokino v. Stuart, Fed. Cas. No. |