Denton v. International Co.

• Decision Date: 30 July 1888
• Citation: 36 F. 1
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: DENTON v. INTERNATIONAL CO. OF MEXICO.

36 F. 1

DENTON v. INTERNATIONAL CO. OF MEXICO.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. California.

July 30, 1888

Stephen M. White, George J. Denis, and Max Loewenthal, for plaintiff cited Harold v. Mining Co., 33 F. 529.

George Fuller, for defendant.

Defendant is an inhabitant of the state of Connecticut, and not of the state of California. Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U.S. 5; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U.S. 350, 1 S.Ct. 354; Railroad Co. v. Alabama, 107 U.S. 581, 2 S.Ct. 432; Insurance Co. v. Woodworth, 111 U.S. 138, 4 S.Ct 364; U.S. v. Telephone Co., 29 F. 17. Plaintiff is a citizen of a foreign state, and is not a citizen of a state in the sense in which the words are used in the constitution and the judiciary acts. Such citizen of a state must be a citizen of the United States. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393. A citizen of a state is not a citizen of the United States unless he has the qualifications of the latter by birth or naturalization. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S 542; Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U.S. 12. And even a citizen of the United States, who is a citizen of the District of Columbia, (Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445; Barney v. Baltimore City, 6 Wall. 280,) or of a territory of the United States, (New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91,) is not a citizen of a state. That the words 'citizens of different states,' in the proviso relating to the district in which suit may be brought, at the end of section 1 of the act of March 3, 1887, do not comprehend 'foreign citizens,' (or citizens of 'foreign states,') is apparent from the use of both terms in the previous part of the section, which declares in what cases the circuit courts shall have jurisdiction.

ROSS J.

This action was commenced in this court. It was brought to recover of defendant a large sum of money, in amount exceeding one million of dollars, for services alleged to have been rendered, and for maps and data alleged to have been furnished, by plaintiff to an alleged Mexican corporation, styled 'Luis Huller & Co.,' in connection with certain lands in the republic of Mexico, payment for which it is charged was assumed by the defendant. In the complaint it is averred that the plaintiff is a citizen of the republic of Mexico, and a resident of the county of San Diego, state of California; that the defendant is a corporation duly created by the laws of the state of Connecticut; that under and by virtue of its charter it has the power and capacity to buy, receive, hold, and sell lands in any state of the United States, and in any and all parts of the republic of Mexico; and to do any and all acts, and to make any and all contracts, relating or incident to the purchase, sale, or holding of such lands; that defendant has ever since its creation carried on business by virtue and under the authority of and in accordance with its charter; that its principal place of business is in the city of Hartford, state of Connecticut; and that it is 'doing business in the state of California, and has an office and managing agent in said state of California, within the county of San Diego. ' The summons issued in the action was served by the marshal of the district, as appears from the returns indorsed thereon, upon one Charles Scofield, 'managing agent of defendant in San Diego county. ' The defendant has appeared specially and only for the purpose of objecting to any jurisdiction of this court over it; and has, among other things, pleaded that it is a foreign corporation, and that at the time of the commencement of this action, and at the time of the attempted service of process upon it, it had no place of business or agent or officer in this state, or any person authorized to receive service of legal process for it, and that Charles Scofield at the time of service upon him was not, and never was, a managing or other agent or officer of defendant within this state.

Without reference to the question of the sufficiency of the plea as set up in the preliminary answer, I think it sufficiently appears from the complaint itself that this court has no jurisdiction of the defendant...