Sec. 2.- Jurisdiction Cases Between States Cl. 1.-Extent of Power-Cases Between States The power extends to controversies between two or more States, including suits to settle disputed boundaries; but a suit by a State on claims assigned to it against another State is not a suit between States within the meaning of this clause. Osborn v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657. New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 91. Minnesota v. Wisconsin, 258 U. S. 149. In order to maintain jurisdiction of a suit between two States it must appear that the controversy to be determined is a controversy arising directly between them and not a controversy in vindication of the grievances of particular individuals. Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 16.1 Penna v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553. Cases Between a State and Citizens of Another State This clause extends the judicial power to suits wherein a State is a party. By the Constitution as originally adopted a State was suable in the Supreme Court by an individual citizen of another State, and it was this ruling that led to the adoption of the eleventh amendment prohibiting suits in the Federal courts against a State by the citizens of another State or by aliens. Jurisdiction of the Federal courts attaches only when a State is a party to the record and the governor or chief executive and the attorney general are served with process, or when an officer is sued in his official capacity. But a suit against an officer is not a suit against the State unless it is against him solely in his representative capacity. New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 1. Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402. Rolston v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 411. See also New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet. 290. Grayson v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 320. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657. Briscoe v. Bank, 11 Pet. 321. U. S. v. Lee, 106 U. S. 207. Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 411. U. S. v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115. Oswald v. New York, 2 Dall. 415. New Jersey v. New York, 3 Pet. 464. Poydras De La Lande v. Louisiana, 17 How. 2. Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 97. In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 506. Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 9. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 37. 1 See also " Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court," p. 475. Sec. 2.- Jurisdiction Cl. 1.-Extent of Power-States and Citizens The object of vesting in the courts of the United States jurisdiction of suits by one State against the citizens of another was to enable such controversies to be determined by a national tribunal and thereby to avoid the partiality, or suspicion of partiality, which might exist if the plaintiff State were compelled to resort to the courts of the State of which the defendants were citizens. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 289. Involving Determination of Political Questions Jurisdiction over controversies "between a State and citizens of another State" does not embrace the determination of political questions, and where no controversy exists between States, the United States Supreme Court can not restrain the governor of a State in the discharge of his executive functions in a matter lawfully confided to his discretion and judgment. Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 23. Suit Against the State in Assumpsit A State is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States at the suit of a citizen of another State, in assumpsit. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, as a result of which case the eleventh amendment was passed. New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 86. As modified by the eleventh amendment this clause prescribes the limits of the judicial power of the court. U. S. v. Louisiana, 123 U. S. 35. If a State statute gives a right to bring suit against the State in the State courts, a Federal court may entertain such a suit when grounds of Federal jurisdiction exist. Reinhart v. McDonald, 76 Fed. 403. Regardless of Parties to Suit A case arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States is cognizable in courts of the Union whoever may be the parties to that case, and an exception does not exist in those cases in which the State may be a party. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 383. Osborn v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 819. Suit Against a State by a Citizen of the State This clause does not give the right to bring a suit in the Federal court against a State by a citizen of that State in a case arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 9. North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U. S. 30. Under this clause a State may bring suit against a citizen of another State, but not against a citizen of the same State. Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Min. Co., 10 Wall. 555. In Texas v. Interstate Com. Com. (258 U. S. 158) the court said that the commission and the Railroad Labor Board, regarded as corporate entities for governmental purposes, are not "citizens" of any State. Sec. 2.-Jurisdiction Cl. 1.-Extent of Power-Diverse Citizenship Cases Between Citizens of Different States In General This clause gives to the Federal courts jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of different States. The object of the grant of power in this respect was to secure for the trial of controversies between citizens of different States a more impartial tribunal than the courts of the State where one litigant resided would be. It is the situation of the parties and not their character that determines the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. The test of jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship, and it is indispensable that all the parties have jurisdictional capacity; each plaintiff must be capable of suing each defendant in the Federal court. If a necessary party defendant is a citizen of the same State with the plaintiff the Federal courts have no jurisdiction. The mere allegation of diverse citizenship by plaintiffs electing to assert a joint claim can not create jurisdiction. For the purpose of jurisdiction a party is not necessarily a citizen of the State of which he is a resident. An averment that one is a resident" of a State is not sufficient; it must affirmatively appear that he is a "citizen." But a party is sufficiently described as a citizen where he alleges that his rights as such have been infringed and avers that he is a "resident," and the sufficiency of the allegation is not questioned below. Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 115. Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 111. Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556. Wickliffe v. Eve, 17 How. 468. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267. Smith v. Lyon, 133 U. S. 316. Florida, etc., R. Co. v. Bell, 176 U. S. 334. Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 184. Wood v. Wagnon, 2 Cranch 9. Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 324. Sully v. American Nat. Bank, 178 U. S. 298. Salem Co. v. Manufacturers Co., 264 U. S. 182. See also McMicken v. Webb, 11 Pet. 38. Ohio v. Wheeler, 1 Black 297. Board of Comrs. v. Aspinwall, 24 How. 384. Mail Co. v. Flanders, 12 Wall. 135. Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 706. New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 95. Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 174. Case of Sewing Machine Companies, 18 Wall. 575. Massachusetts, etc., Co. v. Cane Creek, 155 U. S. 285. Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U. S. 397. Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 382. Edwards v. Tanneret, 12 Wall. 450. Timmons v. Elyton Land Co., 139 U. S. 379. Southern Pac. Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 205. Cooper v. Newell, 155 U. S. 533. Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 648. Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253. Denny . Pironi, 141 U. S. 123. Wolfe v. Hartford Ins. Co., 148 U. S. 389. Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 149. 12703°-S. Doc. 157, 68-1—33 Sec. 2.-Jurisdiction Cl. 1.-Extent of Power-Diverse Citizenship Both parties must be citizens in order to confer jurisdiction under this clause. U. S. Bank v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch 86. Object of Clause In Whelan v. New York, etc., R. Co. (35 Fed. 849) the court said: The clause in the Constitution extending the judicial power to controversies " 'between citizens of different States" was intended to secure the citizen against local prejudice, which might injure him if compelled to litigate his controversy with another in the tribunals of a State not his The object was the avowed purpose of the constitutional provision at the time of its adoption (p. 858). own. No Limitation on the Class of Cases The Constitution imposes no limitation upon the class of cases involving controversies between citizens of different States to which the judicial power of the United States may be extended; and Congress may, therefore, lawfully provide for bringing, at the option of either of the parties, all such controversies within the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary. Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 18. Following Decisions of State Courts Comity or respect for the State courts does not require the Supreme Court of the United States to surrender its judgment to decisions made in the State and declare contracts to be void which upon full consideration have been pronounced valid. In Rowan v. Runnels (5 How. 139) it was said: Undoubtedly this court will always feel itself bound to respect the decisions of the State courts, and from the time they are made will regard them as conclusive in all cases upon the construction of their own constitution and laws. But we ought not to give to them a retroactive effect, and allow them to render invalid contracts entered into with citizens of other States, which in the judgment of this court were lawfully made. For, if such a rule were adopted, and the comity due to State decisions pushed to this extent, it is evident that the provision in the Constitution of the United States, which secures to the citizens of another State the right to sue in the courts of the United States, might become utterly useless and nugatory. Action to Annul a Will The judicial power of the United States extends "to controversies between citizens of different States;" and on the supposition, which is not admitted, that this embraces only such as arise in cases" in law and equity," it does not necessarily exclude those which may involve the exercise of jurisdiction in reference to the proof of validity of wills. Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 496. Suit on Bond Taken in Name of Governor A suit on an officer's bond may be brought by citizens of another State though the bonds were taken in the name of the Sec. 2.-Jurisdiction Cl. 1.-Extent of Power-Diverse Citizenship governor of the State, and the suit must be brought in the name of the governor for the use of the real plaintiff. As the instrument of the State law to afford a remedy against the sheriff and his sureties, the governor's name is in the bond and to a suit upon it, but in no just view of the Constitution or law can he be considered as a litigant party. McNutt v. Bland, 2 How. 14. Relation to Legislative Grant of Jurisdiction The words in the legislative grant of jurisdiction, "of the State where the suit is brought and a citizen of another State," are obviously no more than equivalent terms to confine suits in the circuit courts to those which are "between citizens of different States." Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 553. Residence and Citizenship Residence and citizenship are wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States; and a mere averment of residence in a particular State is not an averment of citizenship in that State for the purposes of jurisdiction. Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U. S. 143. Where plaintiff made only a temporary change of residence for the purpose of prosecuting a suit in the Federal court, such court is without jurisdiction. Jones v. League, 18 How. 76. Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315. Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U. S. 619. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Ohle, 117 U. S. 123. To give the Federal courts jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship it will be presumed that one who has resided in the State for several years, being engaged in a permanent business, is a citizen of such State unless the contrary appears, intention governing change of citizenship being capable of more satisfactory proof by acts than by declarations, and an exercise of the right of suffrage being conclusive on the subject. Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 162. Utah-Nevada Co. v. De Lamar, 133 Fed. 113; writ of certiorari denied in 199 U. S. 605. District of Columbia and Territories as States The District of Columbia and the Territories are not States within the judicial clause of the Constitution giving jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different States. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 270. |