Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/535

 T Cm Jvsc dissenting. diction of the Circuit Court can be maintained if both parties consent to it. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts depends upon some act of Congress, qtevenon v. Fain, 195 U.S. 165, 167; Turner v. Bank, 4 Dall. 8, 10; Mclntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504, 506; and I quote at length from the opinion of Mr. Justice Gray in Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444, because he therein examines tbe statutory provisions bearing on the ques- tion before us, saying (p. 446): "In carrying out the provision of the Constitution which declares that the judicial power of the United States shall exo tend to controversies 'between citizens of different States,' Congress, by the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20, �, conferred jurisdiction on the Circuit Court of suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, 'between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought and a citizen of another State,' and provided that 'no civil suit shall be brought' 'against an inhabitant of the United States,' 'in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ.' 1 Stat. 78, 79. "The word 'inhabitant,' in that act, was apparently used, not in any larger meaning than 'citizen,' but to avoid the incongruity of speaking of a citizen of anything less than a State, when'the intention was tc-cover not only a district which included a whole State, but also two districts in the State, like the districts of Maine and Massachusetts in the State of Massachusetts, and the districts of Virginia and Kentucky in Star. 73. It was held by this court from the beginning that an averment that a party resided within the State or the district in which the suit was brought was not sufficient to support the jurisdiction, because in the common use of words a resident might be a citizen, and therefore it was not stated expressly and beyond ambiguity that he was a citizen of the State, which was the fact on which the jurisdiction depended under the provisions of the Constitution and of the Judiciary Act .... "By the act of May 4, 1858, c. 27, � it was enacted that,

�