Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/699

 WOOLBIDGE V.i m'kBNNA. 685 �do not think, on the facts of this case, this defendant has aoquired Buch a separate citizenship from her father. I find not the leasi trace of any principle upon which this resuit can be accomplished without the complete emancipation of the infant from thO; parental control of the father to that estent that there is conferred upon it the right to choose its own domicile, or upon some one else standing in loco parentis the right to choose one for it. The father can no more constitute a mere residence of his child a citizenship, than he can make his own mere residence a citizenship, under the rules of law regulating this federal jurisdiction over citizens of different states. The domicile of the child must be changed, whether so completely as to alter its status for all purposes or not, certainly so completely that it no longer depends upon the volition of the father to again change it. In Tamworth v. New Market, 3 N. H. 472, it was held that, p> child was not euian<iipated by a contract of the father that it should reside with a! stranger till it was 21 years of age. He cannot by merely depositiiig his child in this or that state continue to change its domicile foi any purpose witKout changing his own. He must r^- linguish and abandon his rights in that behalf to the child itseif or another, or by operation of law the child's domicile will shift only with his o\m. The afiSdavit here shows oiily that he haa placed his child to reside with friends in Kentueky — permanently.he thinks, judged by his own intention as it now exista, and that of the child and the friends with whom she resides, but non conetat that he may ,not change that intention, resume his parental control of his own volition, or that these friends may not compel him to resume it by seiid- ing the «hild back to him. He shows thathe has not feleased his parental authority, because he appeals to it tii sustaini his right tO control this litigation, and has supplemented it by applying for a guardianship of her property. I have no doubt that after ema>neipa- tion he might be guardian or next friend, as any other tnight, and natural father he must always be; but as long as he exercises his legal control qua i&ther, or has the right to do so, his 'child''s domi- cile must remain his own. I have no doubt, therefore, that Maud B. McKenna is a citizen of Tennessee, and for that reason, as well as othersj on the record as it now stands, this cause must be remanded. Eemand the cause. ��� �