Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/57

 o9 u. 8. OpinlSn o! the 0ourt. R/cr&o Dr Co., 189 U.S. 25; Ch/co v. M//, 204 U.S. 1. The u was movable W e cuit urt by the defd-  if it w one of wMch at urt w ven juriction.  St. ; M  r C v. D, 157 U.S. 1; Tt C v. Mii Cny, 1 U.S. 2. The oy ound of o juiction or of re- mov w tMt the it w a controvcy tween clti of t Ss.  tMt c  h vcn the rct rt jction over it, th' cer mitations not mari �here.  St. 4.  plYtiff ns that the t' u w thout jicfion of the cau;' d ould the fore Me d it W the s coup, for two o. mt,  un a proof ament of the ties'ere w not a conovemy tw  of different Ss. 'ond, a the u of action  dilod .by the ple �ow tt the cuit u d no jufiction over the  ject mtr. em om  entirely indendent of eh other d mqm p consideration. rst, w  a ..conovy tween cins of different Stes?  the pg were nged by the pniff hilf on the face of the record, them w a vity of citizensMp. e plaintiff w a citizen of New York d the two defen were citi of Mta. But the pnff iis tt by loong tough the suci  of the ntrovemy W i r subs it is n that �e lway compy's inmst is v'W that of the other ddennt, and the m  t of the plaintiff, and t efo, for e p of inlng the jufiicon, e ft ' ould   m a platiff. If s od  done there wod  a citin of Me a pntiff d oer n of  a dent, d t &vety of eip wch is &sble to e jiction of the t t wod no onger est. t it  med for t ps of t dec,ion t the cot may erd the - rt   e by e per, d  them un  & w  t  and attu&   nov

�