by or against trustees, administrators and executors,3 guar-* Federal Courts irrespectively of the necessary defendants, the suit the citizenship of the persons cannot be entertained, even though whom they represent, such as the beneficiary might be qualified. executors, administrators, guar- The jurisdiction is to be deterdians, trustees, receivers, etc." New Orleans v. Whitney, 138 U. S. 595, 11 Sup. Ct. 428, 34 L. 1102. In the earliest case upon the subject, the Supreme Court said: "The plaintiffs are aliens, and although they sue as trustees, yet they are entitled to sue in the Circuit Court." Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch 306, 2 L. 629. 2 Dodge v. Tulleys, 144 U. S. 451, 12 Sup. Ct. 728, 36 L. 501; Thayer v. Life Association, 112 U. S. 717, 5 Sup. Ct. 355, 28 L. 864; Knapp v. Troy & B. R. Co., 20 Wall. 117, 22 L. 328; Susquehanna & W. V. R. & Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172, 20 L. 179; mined, in all such instances, by the citizenship of the trustee." Shipp v. Williams, 22 U. S. App. 380, 10 C. C. A. 247, 62 Fed. 4. 8 New Orleans v. Whitney, 138 U. S. 595, 11 Sup. Ct. 428, 34 L. 1102; Continental Life Ins. Co. D. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, 7 Sup. Ct. 193, 30 L. 380; American Bible Soc. v. Price, 110 U. S. 61, 3 Sup. Ct. 440, 28 L. 70; Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S. 186, 24 L. 428; s. c., 58 N. Y. 684; s. c., 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 520; Rice v. Houston, 13 Wall. 66, 20 L. 484; Susquehanna & W. V. R. & C. Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172, 20 Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 L. 179; Cranch 306, 2 L. 629; First Nat. Bank v. Radford Trust Co., 47 U. S. App. 692, 26 C. C. A. 1, 80 Fed. 569; Morris v. Lindauer, 6 U. S. App. 510, 4 C. C. A. 162, 54 Fed. 23; Foss v. First Nat. Bank, 3 Fed. 185, 1 McCr. 474; Rike v. Floyd, 42 Fed. 247; Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642, 5 L. 705; Popp v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co., 96 Fed. 465; Semmes v. Whitney, 50 Fed. 666; Harper v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 36 Fed. 102; Goff v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 36 Fed. 299; Dodge v. Perkins, 7 Fed. Cas. 798, 4 Mason 435; Hubbard v. Northern R. Co., 12 Banigan v. Worcester, 30 Fed. Fed. Cas. 781, 3 Blatchf. 84, 25 Vt. 392, "If a trustee is, by his citizenship, qualified to sue in a Federal Court, the citizenship of the beneficiary under the trust is wholly unimportant. If the trustee is disqualified by reason of citizenship in the same State as that of 715, 17 Law Rep. 316; Geyer v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 50 N. H. 224, 9 Am. R. 185; Miller v. Sunde, 1 N. D. 1, 44 N. W. 301. It was said in Wilson v. Hastings Lumber Co., 103 Fed. 801, upon a motion to remand: *Text continued on p. 366. "Aldrich, District Judge. Jurisdiction in a case like this results, if at all, from diverse citizenship of the parties. The defendant is a Maine corporation, and a citizen of that State; and the plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the same State, appointed as administrator in New Hampshire. The New Hampshire judge of probate, by appointing the plaintiff administrator of the estate in question, did not confer New Hampshire citizenship. Diverse citizenship is therefore wanting, and this Court is without jurisdiction. The case is remanded." Mills v. Knapp, 39 Fed. 592; Bartlett v. Rogers, 2 Fed. Cas. 977, 3 Sawy. 62; Caldwell v. Harding, 4 Fed. Cas. 1036, 5 Blatchf. 501; Picquet v. Swan, 19 Fed. Cas. 598, 3 Mason 469; Wood v. Gold, 30 Fed. Cas. 441, 4 McLean 577. A guardian appointed in a foreign State is subject to the same disability. Smith v. Madden, 78 Fed. 833. An exception to this rule is adjudged, in Giddings v. Green, 48 Fed. 489, 4 Hughes 426, and recognized argumentatively, in Wilkins v. Ellett, 108 U. S. 256, 2 Sup. Ct. 641, 27 L. 718, If a citizen of another State be appointed administrator of an estate for the express purpose of conferring jurisdiction of a suit to be brought by him upon the United States Circuit Court for the State in which he is appointed, this will not defeat the jurisdiction of such Court. Goff v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 36 a negotiable note payable to bearer Fed. 299, 301. to exist where suit is brought by an administrator or executor upon or endorsed in blank so as to become in effect payable to bearer. So where a debt has been reduced to judgment by an executor, administrator, or receiver in the State of his appointment, he may maintain a suit on the judgment in another State in his own name without any The general rule is that an administrator or executor cannot sue or be sued in any State other than that in which he was appointed, in the absence of an enabling statute of the State in which the suit is brought. Fenwick v. Sears, 1 Cranch 259, appointment therein. 2 L. 101; Dixon v. Ramsay, 3 Cranch 319, 841; 2 L. 453; Newberry v. Robinson, 36 Fed. Wilkinson v. Culver, 25 Fed. 639, An exception was made in a case Vaughan v. Northup, 15 Pet. 1, 23 Blatchf. 416. 10 L. 639; Noonan v. Bradley, 9 Wall. 394, where an administrator sued to 19 L. 757; Maysville St. R. & T. Co. v. Marvin, 16 U. S. App. 236, 8 C. C. A. 21, 59 Fed. 91; Lusk v. Kimball, 87 Fed. 545; Duchesse d'Auxy v. Porter, 41 Fed. 68; recover damages for the death of a man, not for the benefit of the estate of the decedent, but for the exclusive benefit of his next of kin. Wilson v. Tootle, 55 Fed. 211. Contra, dians, receivers,5 and officers of joint stock associations, such as express companies." The official citizenship of a representative party-the place Mackay v. Central R. Co., 4 Fed. U. S. 595, 11 Sup. Ct. 428, 34 L. 1102, 617; quoted note 1 this section; Taylor v. Pennsylvania Co., 78 Ky. 348, 39 Am. R. 244. The same exception is maintained generally where "the legal title is in the administrator as trustee." Goodyear v. Hullihen, 10 Fed. Cas. 696, 2 Hughes 492, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 251; Pennington v. Smith, 45 U. S. App. 409, 24 C. C. A. 145, 78 Fed. 399; s. c. (at Circuit), 69 Fed. 188; In re Estate of McClean, 26 Fed. 49; Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. 650, 670. 5 Cross v. Evans, 52 U. S. App. De Forest v. Thompson, 40 Fed. | 720, 29 C. C. A. 523, 86 Fed. 1; 375. Brisenden v. Chamberlain, 53 Davies v. Lathrop, 12 Fed. 353, 20 Blatchf. 397; A trustee appointed in one State | Fed. 307; Cover v. Claflin, 57 Fed. 513; Greaves v. Neal, 57 Fed. 816. This right has been extended to a receiver of an insolvent corporation. Hale v. Hardon, 37 C. C. A. 240, 95 Fed. 747, reversing s. c., 89 Fed. 283; American Nat. Bank v. National Failey v. Talbee, 55 Fed. 892. Holmes v. Sherwood, 16 Fed. 725, 3 McCr. 405. Contra: Wigton v. Bosler, 102 Fed. 70. Cheney v. Stone, 29 Fed. 885. Farlow v. Lea, 8 Fed. Cas. 1017, 2 Cin. Law Bul. 329; Gray v. Davis, 10 Fed. Cas. 1006, 1 Woods 420,-jurisdiction was upheld by the Supreme Court in this case on the ground that the suit by the receiver was ancillary to the suit in which he was appointed, Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 21 L. 447. Where a receiver brings suit upon a chose in action derived from the insolvent, the citizenship of the insolvent is material, if jurisdiction be based upon diverse citizenship. 81. Post § 137, notes 12, 13. 6 Whitman v. Hubbell, 30 Fed. Compare Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Adams Exp. Co., 22 Fed. 404; Also ante § 128 and notes. The same rule was applied upon the question of a change of venue in a State court in Bacon v. Dinsmore, 42 How. Pr. 368. of appointment-is not material, nor is the citizenship of the beneficiaries for whom he is acting a matter of moment,8 7 Continental Life Ins. Co. v. | facts prefixed to the opinion of the Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, 7 Sup. Ct. 193, 30 L. 380; Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S. 186, 24 L. 428; s. c., 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 520; United States Supreme Court, that Rice v. Houston, 13 Wall. 66, 20 Life Ins. Co., supra, the plaintiff, L. 484; Wilson v. Hastings Lumber Co., 103 Fed. 801, quoted note 3 to this section; Wilson v. Smith, 66 Fed. 81; Shirk v. La Fayette, 52 Fed. 857; Semmes v. Whitney, 50 Fed. 666; a citizen of Massachusetts, was Well v. Wald, 29 Fed. Cas. 589, 17 Blatchf. 342, Davies v. Lathrop, 12 Fed. 353, 20 Blatchf. 397; Miller v. Sunde, 1 N. D. 1, 44 the petition for removal alleged N. W. 301; that the controversy in the suit Geyer v. John Hancock Mut."is between citizens of different Life Ins. Co., 50 N. H. 224, 233, 9 States, that is to say, between the Am. R. 185. Compare above-named plaintiff, Julius Wehl, as assignee of the estate of Cooke v. Seligman, 7 Fed. 263, 17 | Gabriel Netter and Albert Netter, Blatchf. 452. 6 who was at the commencement of this action, and now is, a citizen of the State of New York, and the above-named defendant, Gustavus H. Wald, as assignee in bankruptcy of Gabriel Netter, Albert Netter and Netter & Co., who is, and was at the commencement of this action, a citizen of the State of Ohio." "The petitions for removal set forth sufficiently the citizenship of the plaintiff in error, but as to the defendants in error the allegations are that said plaintiffs, as such executors, are citizens of the State of New York.' Clearly this is not sufficient. Where the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States depends upon the citizenship of the parties, it has reference to the parties as persons. A petition for removal must, therefore, state the personal citizenship of the parties, and not their official citizenship, if 12 Sup. Ct. 728, 36 L. 501; there can be such a thing." Amory v. Amory, supra, in Supreme Court of United States. The Court said: "This is an allegation of the personal citizenship of the parties." Dodge v. Tulleys, 144 U. S. 451, Knapp v. Troy & B. R. Co., 20 Wall. 117, 22 L. 328; Susquehanna & W. V. R. & Coal It appears from the report of the Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172, 20 Amory case, supra, in the State L. 179; court, and from the statement of nor the citizenship of a decedent whose estate is represented by an executor or administrator.9 A next friend is not a party to a suit; his citizenship is disregarded, and the citizenship of the plaintiff, the actual party, is controlling. 10 A guardian ad litem for an infant defendant has the same status as a next friend.11 Bonnafee v. Williams, 3 How. 574, 11 L. 732; Shipp v. Williams, 22 U. S. App. 380, 10 C. C. A. 247, 62 Fed. 4, quoted note 2 to this section; Harper v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 36 Fed. 102; Goff v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 36 Fed. 299; Dodge v. Perkins, 7 Fed. Cas. 798, 4 Mason 435. Morris v. Lindauer, 6 U. S. App. 510, 4 C. C. A. 162, 54 Fed. 23; Popp v. Cincinnati, H. & D. Co., 96 Fed. 465; Griswold v. Bacheller, 75 Fed. tion, one of the plaintiffs was an In the earliest case upon the subR.ject, Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, supra, quoted in note 1 to this sec 470; administrator de bonis non. Не His decedent was a citizen of Brisenden v. Chamberlain, 53 was an alien-a French citizen. Fed. 307; Harper v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., Georgia. The Supreme Court held 36 Fed. 102; him competent to sue in the United Miller v. Sunde, 1 N. D. 1, 44 N. States Circuit Court. The doctrine W. 301; of this case has never been departed Goodnow v. Litchfield, 67 Iowa from by that Court. 691, 25 N. W. 882; 19 Williams v. Ritchey, 29 Fed. Goodnow v. Oakley, 68 Iowa 25, Cas. 1394, 3 Dill. 406; 25 N. W. 912; Mead v. Walker, 15 Wis. 499. "The fact that the beneficiary in a trust deed may be a citizen of the same State as the grantor, would not, if the trustee is a citizen of a different State, defeat the jurisdiction of the Federal Court." Dodge v. Tulleys, supra. 9 Post § 137, note 11; Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, 7 Sup. Ct. 193, 30 L. 380; Rice v. Houston, 13 Wall. 66, 20 L. 484; Ruckman v. Palisade Land Co., 1 Fed. 367; Dodd v. Ghiselin, 27 Fed. 405 (the head-note erroneously states the suit to have been brought by a guardian, but the text discloses that the person who was the curator or guardian of the infants under the appointment of the State court was appointed their next friend by the Federal Court and brought the suit as such next friend); Wiggins v. Bethune, 29 Fed. 51; Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642, App. 8, 26 C. C. A. 427, 81 Fed. 320. 5 L. 705; In Williams v. Ritchey, supra, Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Judge Dillon gives a clear statement Cranch 306, 2 L. 629; of the reasons for not considering a next friend a party to the suit; 11 For note 11, see p. 369. Bangs v. Loveridge, 60 Fed. 963; |