Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/454

 BBOOKB V. BAILEY. 439 �At the aame time, it was provided that no civil suit should be brought therein against an inhabitant of the United States by original process in any other district than that whereof he should be au inhabitant, or wherein he should be found, at the time of serving the writ. Id. �These provisions continued iii force until the act of March 3, 1875. Eev. St. § 629 ; Id. § 739. The former was the law wbich conferred jurisdiction in this class of cases; the latter was a limit- ation upon the place where suifs might be brought for the ease of defendants. Both were oporative in determining where the place might be. McMicken v. Webb, 11 Pet. 26. The act of March 3, 1875, exteiided the jurisdiction to all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, of the required amount, in which there should be a con- trqversy between citizens of different states, without limiting it to depend at all upon citizensbip of either party in the state where the suit: should be brought; but retained the limitation upon the bfing- irigpf suits in other districts than that whereof the defendant should be J.U iuhabitant or in which he should be found. It has been argued that because this linaitp.tiop is in substantially the same language in the act of 1875 that it was in the act of 1789, it must recoive sub- stantially the same construction that it had always borne. This would be correct if it were to be applied to the same jurisdiction otherwise conferred; but it is not. This provision in the act of 1789 was only to be applied in determining in which district of the two states, between whose citizens jurisdiction of suits was given, the suit must be brought. In the act of 1875 it is to be applied in deter- mining in which, district of all the states, between the citizens of any two of which jurisdiction of suits is given, the suit must be brought. Under the latter act this court, in common with other circuit courts, has jurisdiction of all suits, of the required amount, between citizens of different states among all the states, while under the former it had jurisdiction only of suits between citizens of this state and those of some other of all the states. The suit could be brought only in the district where the, defendant resided or was found, under either. That this defendant was found in this district when the process was served is not denied, and therefore the right to bring the suit iu this district is hot denied. ;. �Plea overruled. Defendant to answet over by January rulo-day. ��� �