Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/805

 BHELDON V. KEOKUK N. 1. P. CO. T9T �it Jurisdiction of a controversy between citizens of the same state, is uo objection to the exercise- of the jurisdiction. �If, in order to take the jurisdiction intended to be granted by the constitution, it becomes neeessary to take jurisdiction of some controversies in the same suit between citizens of the same state, why, the court is quite as competent to deal with these as any other ; and there are several other highly important classes of cases -where jurisdiction of controversies between citizens of the same state is expressly conferred by the constitution on the federal courts. �The question is simply one of what a fair construction of the constitution is, keeping in mind the purpose Lad in vie\r by the framers. The language is not at ail ambiguous, and seems fairly to include ail controversies between citizens of different states, not excepting those where some of the par- ties to the controversy, plaintiff or defendant, have a common state citizenship with some or ail of the opposite party. �This seems to be the view taken by Mr. Justice Strong, in the case of Taylor v. Rockfeller, 7 Cent. Law Jour. 34.-9 ; and, also, of Judge Dillon, in his work on the Eemoval of Causes, where, on page 80, he says : �"But ail the legislation previous to the act of 1875 was such that the supreme court was not necessarily obliged to decide this question ; and it is, in our judgment, properly to be considered as still open. It will be extremely embarrass- ing and unfortunate if the supreme court shall f eel constrained to assign such narrow limits to the constitution. Looking at the purpose in the grant of the federal judicial power in the constitution, and the benefits which are felt to flow from the exercise of this jurisdiction, and the embarrassments which would resuit from a close and rigid construction of the con- stitution in this regard, we think the supreme court would be justified in holding that a case does not cease to be one be. tween citizens of different states, because one or some of the defendants are citizens of the same state with the plaintiffs, or some of the plaintiffs, provided the other defendants are citizens of another or other states." �Mr. Justice Strong, in Taylor v. Rockfeller, says : ��� �