Sixto v. Sarria. Henry F. Hord, Esq., attorney for defendant. Willis Sweet, Esq., attorney for garnishee. RODEY, Judge, delivered the following opinion: The court is brought to examine this record because of the fact that a bill in equity has recently been filed in this court by one Carlos Le Brun, the said bill in equity being cause No. 355 on the equity docket, wherein the said Le Brun prays for relief against the effect of an order made in this supplementary proceeding under date of April 24, 1905, whereby he was required to pay $13,908.90 into the registry of this court. On examining into the matter the court finds that this supplementary proceeding and the order made requiring the said Le Brun to pay the above sum of money into the registry of the court have caused a good deal of litigation,-in fact, it has caused the aforementioned bill in equity to be filed against several parties, and has caused a suit at law, which is No. 339, (post, 168,) on the docket of this court, to be filed by one Pedro Romero against the said Le Brun, and that there are also pending habeas corpus proceedings to relieve one Sarria, the original judgment debtor, from a commitment for contempt in connection with said proceedings. An examination of the record in this particular matter discloses the fact that, while the order requiring the said Le Brun as aforesaid to pay said money into the registry of this court is unfortunately phrased, and appears to be in a measure a finality and an appropriation of the money to the payment of the debt in question, still, under all the circumstances of the case, it is manifest that the order could not be otherwise than interlocutory; and this fact is rendered certain because the judge then on the bench in fact filed with the case an opinion Sixto v. Sarria. setting forth that said order was in fact intended to be and was considered as interlocutory. The court is therefore of opinion that the above-mentioned sum of money was, as the present incumbent of this bench believes, improvidently ordered to be so paid into court by the former judge, because there was not sufficient evidence to show to a certainty that the money belonged to the judgment debtor, or could be subjected to the payment of the debt. In fact, the only evidence then before the court, so far as the record shows, was the evidence of Le Brun that the debt he owed to the judgment debtor was represented by negotiable promissory notes not yet due. In justification of the former judge it may be said that, when such evidence was given, he could not be certain that it was true, but it afterwards developed that the notes in fact were negotiable, and, so far as the evidence shows, had in fact been transferred for a valuable consideration to an innocent third party before they were due, and were produced here in court at the time the suit was brought against Le Brun upon them. The court is therefore now of opinion that the above-mentioned money is improperly in the registry of this court, and that such fact is subjecting the said Le Brun to unnecessary annoyance and expense, and that the same ought to be returned to him without delay. An order to that effect has therefore been entered. Vallecillo y Mandry v. Bertran. LUIS VALLECILLO Y MANDRY ET AL., Plffs., บ. JUAN BERTRAN ET AL., Dfts. San Juan, Equity, No. 365. 1. The jurisdiction of the United States district court for Porto Rico (in cases in which the jurisdiction is predicated on the diverse citizenship of the parties) does not include cases in which there are citizens of Porto Rico on both sides of the controversy. 2. The acts of April 12, 1900, and March 2, 1901, construed. Opinion filed July 9, 1906. Willis Sweet, Esq., for plaintiffs. Henry F. Hord, Esq., and Wm. H. Hawkins, Esq., for all the defendants except Banco Territorial y Agrícola. RODEY, Judge, delivered the following opinion: There are five or more complainants, and ten or more respondents, in this cause. It comes before the court at this time on a special plea to the jurisdiction filed by several of the respondents, which, omitting the heading, title, and signature, is as follows: "The above-named defendants, Juan Bertran, José Bertran, Narciso Basso, the Eastern Sugar Company, Rafael Fabian y Fabian, Luis Manuel Cintrón, Enrique Delgado, and Conrado Vallecillo y Mandry v. Bertran. Palau, specially appearing under protest for the purpose of this plea and for no other, say that this court has no jurisdiction of this case, and ought not to take cognizance of the said bill of complaint, for the reason that the suit is not one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States or treaties made under their authority, and because, as it appears by the said bill, the defendants were not and still are not, all and each and every one citizens of another state or foreign country from that of which the complainants are citizens; but that it appears from the said bill that the defendants Juan Bertran, Rafael Fabian y Fabian, and Conrado Palau are citizens of Spain, whilst the defendant Enrique Delgado is a citizen of Porto Rico, and the citizenship of the defendants Narciso Basso, José Bertran, and Luis Manuel Cintrón does not appear from the said bill; nor does it appear from the bill of complaint who the partners of the Eastern Sugar Company are, nor the citizenship or place of residence of said partners; nor does it appear from the bill of complaint who the partners of the Banco Territorial y Agrícola de Puerto Rico are, nor the citizenship or place of residence of the said partners." It was agreed at the time of the hearing that a demurrer to this plea should be considered as filed by the complainants, and that the bill should be considered as amended so as to show the residence of all the parties to the cause, and that after such amendment it would appear that there were one or more of the complainants residents and citizens of Porto Rico, and one or more of the respondents residents and citizens of Porto Rico, the remainder of the parties on each side being either citizens of the United States or citizens or subjects of a foreign state or states. On this view of the case the argument proceeded. The question being one of the greatest importance, the court invited many members of the bar to present their views upon Vallecillo y Mandry v. Bertran. the subject; and they did so without reference to the fact whether or not they were of counsel in the case. Counsel on both sides, as well as all counsel appearing as amici curia, admitted in the argument that the foregoing plea would unquestionably have been good on a record as above agreed to, if Congress had not enacted the law of March the 2d, 1901, hereinafter referred to. On April the 12th, 1900 (31 Stat. at L. 77, chap. 191), Congress passed an act with reference to the island of Porto Rico, commonly known as the Foraker act, § 34 of which, defining the jurisdiction of this court, stated that it "shall have, in addition to the ordinary jurisdiction of district courts of the United States, jurisdiction of all cases cognizant in the circuit courts of the United States, and shall proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court." This jurisdiction was extended by § 3 of the act of March the 2d, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 953, chap. 812), referred to above, which provides "that the jurisdiction of the district court of the United States for Porto Rico in civil cases shall, in addition to that conferred by the act of April twelfth, nineteen hundred, extend to and embrace controversies where the parties, or either of them, are citizens of the United States, or citizens or subjects of a foreign state or states, wherein the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest or costs, the sum or value of one thousand dollars." It is contended on the one hand that the language of this latter act, "the parties, or either of them," does not necessarily mean all the parties on one side or the other, but includes within its purview cases where only some one or more of the parties, either plaintiff or defendant, or of both, "are either citizens of the United States, or citizens or subjects of a foreign state or states;" while, on the other hand, it is argued that the language |