Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/777

 KBMNA V. BROCKHADS. 765 �uot shown that the removal was made fof the purpose of bringing a suit in this court, or that a suit was then contem- plated. There is no proof that counsel had been consulted about a suit when the parties removed from the state. Be- fore the departure they broke up housekeeping, and paoked and put in store their household fumiture. The plaintiff's husband, I conclude, from ail the evidence, was then in lim- ited circumstanoes pecuniarily, for the fumiture was pledged for an advanee of money under an agreement to pay exorbitant interest, and has since remained in Milwaukee encumbered by chattel mortgage. The testimony of the plaintiff is to the effect that arrangements were made to go to Glencoe, Minnesota, where her husband was to engage in mercantile business. They went first to St. Paul, she remaining there, and he going to Glencoe. She testifies that, on account of disagree- ments with the persons with whom he was to be associated, the business enterprise at the latter place failed, or was not entered upon, and he returned to St. Paul. There they rented fumished rooms, and, as she expresses it, kept house. Their child and nurse were with them. The plaintiff's hus- band, it appears, did not become established in any perma- nent business. His situation was evidently that of one seeking employment. Thus they were living when this suit was commenced, and so afterwards oontiûued. Subsequently, but not untU about the month of December, 1880, the plain- tiff's husband entered into the service of a mercantile house in Chicago, as traveling salesman in Minnesota and Dakota. In the latter part of December they came to Milwaukee, and from that time to the present the plaintiff has remained at a hôtel in this city, and her husband has been with her part and perhaps most of the time. It is not shown that they gave up or abandoned their rooma in St. Paul, and the plaintiff testifies positively that they came here to await the trial of this cause, and with the intention to retum to St. Paul when it should be disposed of ; and it seems that the plaintiff's husband returned to Minnesota before this hear- ing. The plaintiff has also testified that her purpôse was to retum to Minnesota as soon as the trial of this case should be ����