is good ground of demurrer. Ketchum v. Driggs (C. C. 1853) Fed. Cas. No. 7,735.

An allegation in a plea of abatement that all of defendants in the action are not citizens of the state is bad for uncertainty. Hinckley v. Byrne (C. C. 1867) Fed. Cas. No. 6,510.

Denial of citizenship of the plaintiff pleaded with matter to the merits becomes frivolous. Gager v. Harrison (C. C. 1877) Fed. Cas. No. 5,171.

It is no longer necessary to take advantage of the want of the requisite citizenship by plea in abatement. If this or any other defect of jurisdiction appears upon the trial, it is the duty of the court upon its own motion to stop the proceedings and dismiss the suit. Rae v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (C. C. 1882) 14 Fed. 401.

That one of the complainants is a citizen of the state where suit is brought does not present a question of jurisdiction which can be raised on demurrer to the whole bill. Nebraska City Nat. Bank v. Nebraska City H. G. & C. Co. (C. C. 1883) 14 Fed. 763.

Under the old system of pleadings the issue of citizenship could only be presented by plea in abatement. Draper v. Town of Springport (C. C. 1883) 15 Fed. 328.

Where the citizenship of the parties appears in the petition, defect of jurisdiction on that ground may be raised by demurrer, in the absence of a general appearance. Meyer v. Herrera (C. C. 1889) 41 Fed. 65.

In a suit to enforce the individual liability of stockholders, the defendant stockholders who appear may set up this defense by demurrer. Elkhart Nat. Bank v. Northwestern Guaranty Co. (C. C. 1897) 84 Fed. 76.

Where the requisite diversity of citizenship to give a federal court jurisdiction appears on the face of the bill, the jurisdiction cannot be attacked by evidence dehors the record in a collateral proceeding by one who was not a party to the bill. W. B. Conkey Co. v. Russell (C. C. 1901) 111 Fed. 417, appeal dismissed Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co. (1904) 133 Fed. 165, 66 C. C. A. 291, writ of certiorari denied (1905) 25 S. Ct. 793, 196 U. S. 638, 49 L. Ed. 630. In a suit in equity in a federal court, an allegation of complainant's citizenship in the bill, though denied in the answer, stands admitted, unless a plea to the jurisdiction is filed. Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Standard Brewery (C. C. 1909) 174 Fed. 252.

349. Waiver of objection.-Where the petition in a suit to foreclose a mortgage in the federal court for Louisiana, against the executor of the mortgagor, describes the plaintiff as a citizen of Tennessee and the defendant as a citizen of Louisiana, and no objection appears to have been made by the executor to the jurisdiction on the ground of the residence of the parties, it is too

late for a curator, appointed in the place of the executor, to raise the objection in a state court, against a purchaser at the sale in the foreclosure suit, that the residence of the executor was not as stated in the record, and that the federal court therefore had not jurisdiction; and evidence dehors the record cannot be introduced to disprove it. Erwin v. Lowry (1849) 48 U. S. (7 How.) 172, 12 L. Ed. 655.

A delay of several years in forcing to trial a cause in a federal court, where the issue of citizenship was made when the answer was filed, some two years after filing the complaint, is not laches, precluding consideration of such issue at the trial. Gilbert v. David (1915) 35 S. Ct. 164, 235 U. S. 561, 59 L. Ed. 360.

An averment of plaintiff's citizenship in an action in a federal court, in which jurisdiction depends on diversity of citizenship, is a material allegation, within the meaning of the Ohio Code, and is put in issue, under such Code, by a general denial in the answer; and a general verdict finding the issues in favor of plaintiff, followed by judgment thereon, is conclusive on such issue as against a defendant who has participated in the trial without objecting to the jurisdiction, or asking any ruling or instruction on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence on the issue. Toledo Traction Co. v. Cameron (1905) 137 Fed. 48, 69 C. C. A. 28.

Absence of sufficient averments of diversity of citizenship, or of facts in the record showing such diversity, is fatal to the jurisdiction of a federal court, where no other ground of jurisdiction appears, and the defect cannot be waiyed by the parties. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Frederickson (1910) 177 Fed. 206, 101 C. C. A. 376.

Where jurisdiction of a nonresident was sought to be obtained by garnishment of an indebtedness owing by a resident, but it appeared on the face of the record that the indebtedness was unavailable for that purpose, a waiver of the objection would not be found, unless it clearly appeared from a record unambiguous on that point. Lowenstein v. Levy (1914) 212 Fed. 383, 129 C. C. A. 59.

Where the objection as to diversity of citizenship goes only to the proper place of trial, it is waived by defendant's pleading to the merits. Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage (1914) 218 Fed. 547, 134 C. C. A. 275.

Where proper diversity of citizenship is alleged, and defendant pleads to the merits, he does not waive right to plead to the jurisdiction, if, as soon as it appears that the citizenship of the parties has not been properly alleged, he pleads to the jurisdiction. Id.

After a trial on the merits, and a verdict or judgment given, defendant is estopped to controvert the fact of citizenship, as laid in the declaration. Boby

shall v. Oppenheimer (C. C. 1824) Fed. Cas. No. 1,592.

The voluntary appearance of nonresident defendants who are citizens of the same state with complainants will not give the court jurisdiction. Lockhart v. Horn (C. C. 1871) Fed. Cas. No. 8,445; Parsons v. Howard (C. C. 1873) Fed. Cas. No. 10,777.

Where the jurisdiction depends on the diverse citizenship of corporations, defective averments in regard thereto are waived by the filing of an answer and the taking of testimony. Kennedy v. Solar Refining Co. (C. C. 1895) 69 Fed. 715.

Where, in a suit not local in character, in which federal jurisdiction depends on diversity of citizenship, citizens of other states than that in which the suit is instituted are joined as defendants, such joinder is not a jurisdictional defect, and may be waived by the defendants erroneously joined. Schultz v. Highland Gold Mines Co. (C. C. 1907) 158 Fed. 337.

The federal courts have no jurisdiction of a case in which one of the parties defendant and the plaintiff are residents in different districts from that in which the suit is brought, though it seems such nonresident defendant may waive his privilege and assent to the jurisdiction. Denniston v. Potts (1848) 19 Miss. (11 Smedes & M.) 36. See, also, Cuthbert v. Galloway (C. C. 1888) 35 Fed. 466.

VII. SUITS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF A STATE AND FOREIGN STATES OR CITIZENS

See, also, notes under Const. art. 3, § 2, cl. 1.

350. Suits by aliens.-Alienage on the part of plaintiff gives jurisdiction to the United States court as against citizen defendants. Katalla Co. v. Rones (1911) 186 Fed. 30, 108 C. C. A. 132 (affirming judgment Rones v. Katalla Co. [C. C. 1910] 182 Fed. 946); Suravitz v. Pristasz (1912) 201 Fed. 335, 119 C. C. A. 573; Eldorado Coal & Mining Co. v. Mariotti (1914) 215 Fed. 51; Taylor v. Carpenter (C. C. 1844) Fed. Cas. No. 13,784; Id. (C. C. 1846) Fed. Cas. No. 13,785; Deakin v. Lea (C. C. 1879) Fed. Cas. No. 3,695; Milliken v. Barrow (C. C. 1893) 55 Fed. 148, 149; Fribourg v. Pullman Co. (C. C. 1910) 176 Fed. 981; Bagenas v. Southern Pac. Co. (C. C. 1910) 180 Fed. 887; H. J. Decker, Jr., & Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C. 1911) 189 Fed. 224; Lowry v. Erwin (La. 1843) 6 Rob. 192, 39 Am. Dec. 556.

A federal court has jurisdiction of a controversy between foreign subjects and a domestic corporation in which the bill asserts a right under a federal statute by virtue of the registration of a trade-mark. Baglin v. Cusenier Co. (1911) 31 Sup. Ct. 669, 671, 221 U. S. 580, 55 L. Ed. 863.

An alien holding land under a special

law of a state may sustain a suit in the circuit court relating to such land. Bonaparte v. Camden & A. R. Co. (C. C. 1830) Fed. Cas. No. 1,617.

A suit by an alien against citizens of the United States to enjoin a conspiracy to prevent the loading or unloading of complainant's ship is within the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts, independently of any question as to interference with interstate or foreign commerce. Elder v. Whitesides (C. C. 1895) 72 Fed. 724, following Hagan v. Blindell (1893) 56 Fed. 696, 6 C. C. A. 86, and Arthur v. Oakes (1894) 63 Fed. 310, 11 C. C. A. 209, 25 L. R. A. 414.

The United States court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of foreign claims against a decedent's estate. Del Valle v. Welsh (C. C. 1886) 28 Fed. 342.

An action by a nonresident alien against corporations and individuals for negligent death is within the jurisdiction of the federal court. Mahopoulus v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (C. C. 1908) 167 Fed. 165.

Under this section District Court held to have jurisdiction of alien's suit to enjoin enforcement of state law requiring employment of citizens in preference to aliens, without regard to the amount in controversy. Raich v. Truax (D. C. 1915) 219 Fed. 273.

A state court has jurisdiction of an action for personal injuries to an alien on a ship owned by a corporation of a foreign country while at a wharf within the state. Faras v. Lower California Development Co. (Cal. App. 1915) 151 P. 35.

351. Suits against aliens.-See, also, notes under § 991(3), post.

Federal courts will take jurisdiction by removal of suits against aliens. Lexington v. Butler (1871) 14 Wall. 282, 294, 20 L. Ed. 809; Ex parte Girard (C. C. 1858) Fed. Cas. No. 5,457; Deakin v. Lea (C. C. 1879) Fed. Cas. No. 3,695; Bentlif v. London & Colonial Finance Corp. (C. C. 1890) 44 Fed. 667, 668; Webre v. Duroc (1860) 15 La. Ann. 65.

But on a recognizance for good behavior sued against an alien he is not entitled to remove the case for trial into the federal court. Respublica v. Cobbet (Pa. 1798) 2 Yeates, 352.

Unless it voluntarily appears, a foreign corporation cannot be made a party defendant to a suit in a federal court by one of its creditors, who seeks the appointment of a receiver, an accounting, and to enforce the individual liability of stockholders who are within the jurisdiction of the court. Elkhart Nat. Bank v. Northwestern Guaranty Loan Co. (1898) 87 Fed. 252, 30 C. C. A. 632.

Where a suit between citizens of the same state has been brought in a federal court, by collusion or otherwise, on the ground of defendant's alienage, and a default decree entered, such pro

ceedings are wholly without jurisdiction and void, and injunction will lie against the execution of the decree. Broadis v. Broadis (C. C. 1898) 86 Fed. 951.

An action by a citizen of Illinois against an alien insurance company for malicious prosecution was within the original jurisdicton of the federal court sitting in Missouri. Carp v. Queen Ins. Co. (C. C. 1909) 168 Fed. 782.

The grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts by Const. art. 3, § 2, and the judiciary act of controversies between citizens of the United States and citizens and subjects of foreign states, includes suits against, as well as suits by, aliens. H. J. Decker, Jr., & Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C. 1911) 189 Fed. 224.

There being statutory provision for acquiring jurisdiction, a corporation of another state can sue an alien corporation in the federal courts. Merchants' Mfg. Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (N. Y. 1882) 63 How. Prac. 459.

352. Suits by or against foreign states.-See, also, notes under Const. art. 3, § 2, cl. 1.

Under Const. art. 3, § 2, and this section, the federal court had jurisdiction of a suit between a West Virginia Corporation and the Republic of Colombia. Republic of Colombia v. Cauca Co. (1903) 23 Sup. Ct. 704, 705, 190 U. S. 524, 47 L. Ed. 1159.

A federal court, whose action was invoked by the Republic of Colombia to set aside an award made against it in arbitration proceedings, has the same power to decree the payment of interest from the date fixed for payment by the award as in an ordinary case. Ex parte Republic of Colombia (1904) 25 S. Ct. 107, 195 U. S. 604, 49 L. Ed. 338.

The constitution gives jurisdiction to the federal courts in cases where foreign nations are parties, and this jurisdiction is vested by statute in the federal court. King of Spain v. Oliver (C. C. 1810) Fed. Cas. No. 7,814.

Where a libel was filed to recover compensation for salvage services rendered to a vessel, which, though not commissioned in the navy of the United States, was owned, manned, supplied, and armed by the United States, and used in the transport service, held, that the judicial tribunals of a country cannot entertain suits in which the sovereign power of that country is sought to be made a party respondent. Thomas A. Scott (D. C. 1864) 90 Fed. 746.

The

353. Coplaintiffs and codefendants.All defendants must be aliens to permit of removal of the cause to a federal court. Hervey v. Illinois Midland Ry. Co. (C. C. 1876) Fed. Cas. No. 6,434; People v. Hager (1862) 20 Cal. 167; Davis v. Cook (1874) 9 Nev. 134. Where plaintiff brought suit in the federal court against one defendant stated to be a citizen of a foreign state,

and two other defendants whose citizenship was not alleged, and all appeared and answered, a decree for plaintiff will be invalid for want of jurisdiction unless it appears that the defendant, whose citizenship was alleged, had an interest distinct from the others. Cameron V. McRoberts (1818) 3 Wheat. 591, 593, 4 L. Ed. 467.

A removal on the ground of citizenship cannot be had, when, upon arranging the parties according to their real relation to the primary controversy, it appears that there are one or more alien corporations on each side. Merchants' Cotton-Press & Storage Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1894) 151 U. S. 368, 14 Sup. Ct. 367, 38 L. Ed. 195.

Jurisdiction as to resident defendants in suit by aliens is not affected by nonresidence of others. Bell v. Ohio Life Ins. Co. (C. C. 1858) Fed. Cas. No. 1,261.

Where the contract sued on was entered into between plaintiff and defendants, one of whom was a citizen of the same state with the plaintiff, and the other a citizen of a foreign country, and both defendants are not only necessary but indispensable parties to the controversy, as shown from the face of the bill, a United States court is without jurisdiction. Watson v. Evers (C. C. 1882) 13 Fed. 194.

Where a suit was instituted by an alien against a corporation, citizen of the state where suit is brought, the jurisdiction of the federal court is not defeated by the mere fact that a shareholder, a citizen of the state, was admitted by the court upon his own application as a coplaintiff. Graham v. Boston, H. & E. R. Co. (C. C. 1883) 14 Fed. 753, decree affirmed (1886) 6 S. Ct. 1009, 118 U. S. 161, 30 L. Ed. 196.

A suit begun in the state court of New York, in which one of the plaintiffs is a citizen of that state, the other a citizen of New Jersey, and one of the defendants is a citizen of Maryland, and the other a subject of Prussia, is removable to the United States court. Ballin v. Lehr (C. C. 1885) 24 Fed. 193.

In a suit by a foreign corporation to enjoin strikers, joinder of citizens of Washington and aliens as defendants did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co. v. Lawrey (D. C. 1913) 202 Fed. 263.

354. Nominal or formal parties.-The courts of the United States have jurisdiction in a case between citizens of the same state, if the plaintiffs are only nominal plaintiffs for the use of an alien. Browne V. Strode (1809) 5 Cranch, 303, 3 L. Ed. 108.

Where alien plaintiffs expressly sue as a class for the benefit of the class, all of whom, whether named or not, may avail themselves of the decree, if obtained, a citizen, member of the class,

joined with them, may be regarded as an unnecessary and formal party, whose joinder does not affect the defendants' right of removal. McHenry v. New York, P. & O. R. Co. (C. C. 1885) 25 Fed. 65.

An action by a county school board against an alien to cancel a deed to certain swamp lands, made by the county commissioner, was brought in the name of the state. The county was made a defendant because it refused to join as a complainant. Held, that both state and county were merely nominal parties. Missouri v. Alt (C. C. 1892) 73 Fed. 302.

355. Persons in representative or fiduciary capacity.-Aliens, though suing as trustees of a resident, are entitled to sue in the federal courts. Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux (1808) 4 Cranch, 306, 2 L. Ed. 629.

A federal court in New York cannot take jurisdiction of a suit against nonresident aliens to establish title to bonds held by them as executors on the theory that they were within the district, because that state, by virtue of probate of testator's will and appointment of defendants as executors, may treat both them and the estate as constructively present and subject to jurisdiction. Chase v. Wetzlar (1912) 32 S. Ct. 659, 225 U. S. 79, 56 L. Ed. 990. An executor may recover rents for the use of the heir who is an alien. Wise v. Resler (C. C. 1819) Fed. Cas. No. 17,911.

A suit to foreclose, brought by an alien railroad mortgage bondholder in his own right, is maintainable in a federal circuit court, although the trustee under the mortgage, who holds the legal title, is a citizen of the same state with some of the defendants; such suit being in hostility to the trustee, who refuses to act, and who is made a party defendant. Under such circumstances, the court will not look behind the parties to the record. Reinach v. Atlantic & G. W. R. Co. (C. C. 1878) 58 Fed. 33.

356. Suits between aliens.-See, also, notes under Const. art. 3, § 2, cl. 1.

See, also, notes under § 991, subdivision 3, post.

Waiver of objections, see 365, post. The courts of the United States have no jurisdiction of a case in which both parties are aliens. Mossman v. Higginson (1800) 4 Dall. 12, 1 L. Ed. 720; Montalet v. Murray (1807) 4 Cranch, 46, 2 L. Ed. 545; Hodgson v. Bowerbank (1809) 5 Cranch, 303, 3 L. Ed. 108; Jackson v. Twentyman (1829) 2 Pet. 136, 7 L. Ed. 374; Mossman v. Higginson (1880) 4 Dall, 12, 1 L. Ed. 720; Prentiss v. Brennan (C. C. 1851) Fed. Cas. No. 11,385; Rateau v. Bernard (C. C. 1854) Fed. Cas. No. 11,579; Hinckley v. Byrne (C. C. 1887) Fed. Cas. No. 6,510; Petrocokino v.

Stuart (C. C. 1879) Fed. Cas. No. 11,041; Pooley v. Luco (C. C. 1896) 72 Fed. 561; Gage v. Riverside. Trust Co. (C. C. 1906) 156 Fed. 1002; Orosco v. Gagliardo (1863) 22 Cal. 83; Barrowcliffe v. La Caisse Générale (N. Y. 1876) 58 How. Prac. 131; Barrowcliffe v. La Caisse Générale des Assurances Agricoles et des Assurance Contre L'Incendie (N. Y. 1879) 1 City Ct. R. 151.

357. Aliens within purview of statute. -Declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States does not make the citizen or subject of a foreign country cease to be such. Maloy v. Duden (C. C. 1885) 25 Fed. 673; Orosco v. Gagliardo (1863) 22 Cal. 83.

A person born under the dominion of the Mexican republic, who was removed at the age of four years before the declaration of the Texan independence, to a place in Mexico, held to be an alien entitled to sue in the federal courts. Jones v. McMasters (1857) 20 How. 8, 20, 15 L. Ed. 805.

The alienage of a defendant is not to be presumed from the mere fact that he is the consul, in this country, of a foreign government. Bors v. Preston (1884) 111 U. S. 252, 4 S. Ct. 407, 28 L. Ed. 419.

The constitution of a state authorizing resident unnaturalized foreigners to vote at state elections and hold office does not change their status as aliens. Lanz v. Randall (C. C. 1876) Fed. Cas. No. 8,080.

The defendant's affidavit, together with an official passport certifying the naturalization of the defendant as a British citizen, are sufficient prima facie evidence that the requirements of the English statutes of naturalization have been complied with. Maloy v. Duden (C. C. 1885) 25 Fed. 673.

After

Plaintiff, a native citizen of Louisiana, married a native-born subject of Italy, who, prior thereto, had come to Louisiana, and engaged in business, without intending ever to return to Italy, though he was not naturalized. her marriage, she and her husband, until his death, lived together in Louisiana, without any intention on the part of either to depart therefrom or ever to reside elsewhere, and she, after his death, continued to live there. Held, that she was not an alien. Comitis v. Parkerson (C. C. 1893) 56 Fed. 556, 22 L. R. A. 148.

Whatever distinction there may be between citizenship enjoyed by a subject of Great Britain resident in the United Kingdom and that possessed by a citizen of the Dominion of Canada, they are subjects of the same sovereignty, and citizens of a foreign state; and the court will take notice of the fact that they are "citizens and subjects of a foreign state," for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction. Lumley v. Wabash Ry. Co. (C. C. 1895) 71 Fed. 21, decree re

versed (1896) 76 Fed. 66, 22 C. C. A. 60.

Congress having declared by resolution that the people of the Island of Cuba "are and of right ought to be free and independent," and the status of the island in this regard not having been changed by the treaty with Spain of December 10, 1898, a citizen of Cuba is a citizen of a foreign state. Betancourt v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n (C. C. 1900) 101 Fed. 305.

The fact that a complainant in a bill, which he afterward dismissed through an error, styled himself a citizen of the District of Columbia, does not estop him from showing in a second bill that he is in fact an alien. Marthinson v. Winyah Lumber Co. (C. C. 1903) 125 Fed. 633.

A British subject became a naturalized citizen and took the oaths of abjuration and allegiance to this state in 1784, and in 1795 took an oath of allegiance to the king of Spain, and was appointed a consul by the Spanish king, and continued to reside in New York without ever changing his domicile. Held, that he was still to be considered as an American citizen, and not an alien or Spanish subject. Fish v. Stoughton (N. Y. 1801) 2 Johns. Cas. 407.

358. Corporations as aliens.-A corporation created by the laws of Great Britain is an "alien." Terry v. Imperial Fire Ins. Co. (C. C. 1874) Fed. Cas. No. 13,838.

A corporation of a foreign country, though having an office and transacting business in this country, will be considered an alien. Petrocokino v. Stuart (C. C. 1879) Fed. Cas. No. 11,041.

A corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country, and having its chief office there, does not become a resident of a state of the United States by doing business and having an office therein. Purcell v. British Land & Mortgage Co. (C. C. 1890) 42 Fed. 465.

An insurance corporation created under the laws of the Republic of France, is to be regarded, for the purposes of federal jurisdiction, as if it were a natural person, and a citizen of France. Barrowcliffe v. La Caisse Générale des Assurances Agricoles et des Assurance Contre L'Incendie (N. Y. 1879) 58 How. Prac. 131, 1 City Ct. R. 151.

359. Nonresident citizens as aliens.A native-born American citizen carrying on trade in a foreign country, where he is domiciled, can maintain a suit as an alien against a citizen of the state of his birth in a federal court in said state. Wildes v. Parker (C. C. 1839) Fed. Cas. No. 17,652.

Defendant, though residing permanently abroad, held not a foreign citizen or subject. Hammerstein v. Lyne (D. C. 1912) 200 Fed. 165.

360. Partnership including aliens.A federal court has jurisdiction of a

suit by an alien against a partnership consisting of two partners, one of whom is also an alien and one a resident citizen; the partnership being domiciled in Louisiana, and the obligation sought to be enforced originating there. Liverpool, B. & R. P. Nav. Co. v. Agar (C. C. 1882) 14 Fed. 615.

Where certain of the members of a limited partnership organized under the laws of New York were aliens, and such partnership was joined with a foreign corporation as a plaintiff in an action in the federal court in New York against a firm composed of citizens of New York, such limited partnership should not be treated, for the purpose of determining jurisdiction, as if it were a corporation located in New York, but the members thereof retain their individual rights as aliens entitled to sue in the federal courts. Jewish Colonization Ass'n v. Solomon & Germanski (C. C. 1903) 125 Fed. 994.

361. Aliens resident in state. The residence of aliens within a state will not deprive them of their right to sue in the federal courts. Breedlove v. Nicolet (1833) 7 Pet. 413, 430, 8 L. Ed. 731.

362. Necessary allegations in suits involving aliens.-In order to give federal jurisdiction in an action by an alien, the defendant must be expressly stated to be a citizen of one of the states. Mossman v. Higginson (1800) 4 Dall. 12, 14, 1 L. Ed. 720; Hodgson v. Bowerbank (1809) 5 Cranch, 303, 304, 3 L. Ed. 108; Picquet v. Swan (C. C. 1828) Fed. Cas. No. 11,134; Welch v. Tennent (1854) 4 Cal. 203.

Though one party's alienage is averred, yet it is necessary also to aver that the other party is a citizen. Mossman v. Higginson (1800) 4 U. S. (4 Dall.) 12. 1 L. Ed. 720; Hodgson v. Bowerbank (1809) 5 Cranch, 303, 3 L. Ed. 108; Jackson v. Twentyman (1829) 2 Pet. 136, 7 L. Ed. 374; Conolly v. Taylor (1829) 2 Pet. 556, 7 L. Ed. 518.

Where the jurisdiction of the federal courts depends upon the alienage of the parties to an action, the facts showing such alienage must be set forth on the record. Turner v. Enrille (1799) 4 U. S. (4 Dall.) 7, 1 L. Ed. 717; Course v. Stead (1800) 4 U. S. (4 Dall.) 22, 1 L. Ed. 724; Conolly v. Taylor (1829) 27 U. S. (2 Pet.) 556, 7 L. Ed. 518.

Where an alien instituted an action against a citizen of New York, it was held that his pleading, though there was no averment that the defendant was a citizen of New York, contained all the averments required to give jurisdiction to the United States courts. Bradstreet v. Thomas (1838) 12 Pet. 59, 62, 9 L. Ed. 999.

Though the fact that one is an alien does not affect his right of property in a trade-mark, that fact is a necessary allegation to establish the requisite diversity of citizenship to confer jurisdic