Chicago Ry Co v. Ohle

Decision Date01 March 1886
Citation117 U.S. 123,6 S.Ct. 632,29 L.Ed. 837
PartiesCHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. v. OHLE. Filed
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

N. M. Hubbard and Chas. A. Clark, for plaintiff in error.

S. S. Burdett, for defendant in error.

WAITE, C. J.

This is a writ of error brought under section 5 of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. 470, c. 137,) to reverse an order of the circuit court remanding a case which had been removed from a state court. The suit was brought in a state court of Iowa on the nineteenth of November, 1883, by Ohle, the defendant in error, described in the petition as a citizen of Illinois, against the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, an Illinois corporation, to recover damages for an injury sustained by him while a laborer on a construction train of the railway company in Iowa. On the twenty-first of March, 1884, the company petitioned for the removal of the suit to the circuit court of the United States on the ground that Ohle was a citizen of Iowa, and the railway company a citizen of Illinois. The case was docketed in the circuit court of the United States May 13, 1884, and the next day, May 14, Ohle moved to remand, because both he and the company were citizens of the same state. On the twenty-second of May he was given leave to file a plea in abatement or to the jurisdiction, which he did August 29, 1884, alleging that both he and the company were citizens of Illinois. Upon this plea issue was joined, and a trial had with a jury, October 30, 1884. On the trial it appeared that at the time of the injury Ohle was a minor, having his home with his parents, who were citizens of Iowa, residing at Burlington, in that state. While still a minor he brought suit by his next friend in a state court of Iowa against the company to recover damages for his injury. This suit was removed by the company to the circuit court of the United States. Before any trial was had, and in April, 1883, Ohle went to Janesville, Wisconsin, to attend school for the purpose of learning telegraphy. In October, 1883, he went from the school to Des Moines, Iowa, to attend a trial of his suit, and the trial resulted in a disagreement of the jury. He then went to visit his parents in Burlington, and stayed about a week. After the disagreement of the jury he discontinued his suit, and about the sixth of November went to Chicago, Illinois, where he remained until about the twenty-seventh of November. While he was in Chicago at this time the present suit was begun, and the simple question presented on the trial of the issue made by the reply to the plea to the jurisdiction was whether he had actually and in good faith given up his citizenship in Iowa and acquired a new citizenship in Illinois before this suit was brought. He was the only witness sworn. He testified in substance that when he went to Chicago, he intended to make that his home. It is true in a subsequent part of his testimony he said this was done so as to prevent the railroad company from removing any other suit he might bring in Iowa to the courts of the United States; but according to his testimony he then, being of full age, did leave Iowa with the bona fide intention of abandoning his citizenship in that state and gaining another in Illinois. He has never gone back to Iowa to reside. He was of age and had the right to abandon one residence and take up another. He took a room in Chicago and remained there three weeks. Before this was done the manager of the school in Janesville where he was being taught had engaged employment for him in Chicago, which he was to enter upon as soon as he had finished his education. After his suit was brought he went from Chicago to the school in Janesville with the in tention, as he says, of returning when he had got through with his education. He did go back on the thirteenth of March, 1884, took up the work for which he had been been engaged, and remained there all the time doing that work until he was sworn at the trial of the issue on the plea to the jurisdiction in this case. He was examined fully by counsel for both parties. Some things which he testified to had a tendency to prove that he did not, in good faith, go to Chicago with the intention at that time of abandoning his citizenship in Iowa and acquiring another in Illinois.

In the course of the trial, also, Ohle offered in evidence an affidavit, filed in the case on behalf of the company, for the purpose of requiring him to give security for costs because he was a non-resident of Iowa. That affidavit was as follows: 'I, H. G. Burt, being first duly sworn, on oath say: That I am the superintendent of the Iowa Division of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, which includes the main line from Clinton, Iowa, to Council Bluffs, Iowa, together with several branches; that I am acquainted with the facts in regard to the injury of Gus. B. Ohle for which the above suit is brought, and that the defendant has a good defense to the entire claim made by the plaintiff in said cause, and that the plaintiff is a non-resident of the state of Iowa, as he claims in his petition in this case, and as I believe.' To the introduction of this affidavit the railway company objected. This objection was overruled, and an exception taken. When the evidence was closed the railway company asked the court to charge the jury as follows:

'(2) In order to acquire a domicile and citizenship in Illinois the defendant must have gone there in November, 1883, with the intention of remaining there permanently then; it was not enough if his intention was to go on to Janesville and finish his education there and then return to Illinois to remain permanently. If such was not his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • McEldowney v. Card
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • September 21, 1911
    ... ... See Jones v. League, 18 How. 76, 15 L.Ed. 263; ... Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U.S. 550, 6 Sup.Ct. 501, 29 ... L.Ed. 729; Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Ohle, 117 U.S ... 123, 6 Sup.Ct. 632, 29 L.Ed. 837; Wetmore v. Rymer, supra; ... Mex. Cent. Ry. Co. v. Duthie, supra; Globe Ref ... ...
  • Valerie L. Calf Boss Ribs v. Cornelius (In re L.D.C.)
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • August 16, 2022
    ...679 (1936) ("[t]he question as to place of residence of a given person is ordinarily one of fact"—citing Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Ohle , 117 U.S. 123, 6 S. Ct. 632, 29 L.Ed. 837 (1886) ). Based on the evidentiary record presented by the parties, we hold that, in substantive essence, the St......
  • State of Virginia v. Felts
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • September 1, 1904
    ... ... 289, 32 L.Ed. 694. The ... weight of authority, however, seems to sustain the view that ... the jury should try the issue. Chic. R. Co. v. Ohle, ... 117 U.S. 123, 6 Sup.Ct. 632, 29 L.Ed. 837; Imperial Co ... v. Wyman (C.C.) 38 F. 576-578, 3 L.R.A. 503; Gribble ... v. Pioneer Press Co ... ...
  • Mas v. Perry
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 3, 1974
    ...be since he had lived in Louisiana as a student-teaching assistant prior to filing this suit, see Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Ohle, 117 U.S. 123, 6 S.Ct. 632, 29 L.Ed. 837 (1886); Bell v. Milsak, W.D.La., 1952, 106 F.Supp. 219—then Mrs. Mas would also be deemed a domiciliary, and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT