Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/567

 BT. LOOIS NAT. BANK V. ALLBK. 555 �trict in which the court is held, under any law providing for national banking associations." But it is very clear that the effect of this provision is not to oust the court of jurisdiction under other provisions of the statutes of the United States. It gives to the circuit courts jurisdiction in cases hy or against national banks "established in the district in which the court is held," independently of any question of citizenship, and without reference to the subject-matter; but it does not pro- hibit the exercise of jurisdiction in any case which, under the bank act itself, or under the judiciary act, or any of its amend- ments, might have been brought independently of that pro- vision. There is nothing in the language in question to exclude jurisdiction in any other class of cases ; it is permis- sive merely, and there is no necessary conflict between it and the provisions of law under which jurisdiction is claimed in the present case. �Our attention has also been called to the provisions of section 640 of the Eevised Statutes, by which national banks are excluded from the right conferred upon other fed- eral corporations, to remove suits brought against them in the state courts; but we are unable to see that this provision has any application to the question of the original jurisdic- tion of the circuit court. The conclusions we have reached are supported by the foUowing authorities, and we know of none to the contrary : Manuf. Nat. Bank v. Baack, 8 Blatchf. 137; Cooke v. State Nat. Bank, 52 N. Y. 96; Davis v. Cook, 9 Nev. 134; Dillon on Eemoval of Causes, 51. �The demurrer to the petition is overruled. �Love, D. J., concurs. ����