ACitizenofaStateis aCitizenoftheseveralStates whenabroad

2012DanGoodman AcitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates,isacitizenofthe severalStateswhenabroad.ThiscanbeseeninthecaseofHiltonv.Guyot(159U.S. 113,1895): Thepresentcaseisnotoneofapersontravellingthroughorcasuallyfoundina foreigncountry.Thedefendants,althoughtheywerenotcitizensorresidentsof France,butwerecitizensandresidentsoftheStateofNewYork,andtheir principalplaceofbusinesswasinthecityofNewYork,yethadastorehouseand anagentinParis,andwereaccustomedtopurchaselargequantitiesofgoods there,althoughtheydidnotmakesalesinFrance.Undersuchcircumstances, evidencethattheirsoleobjectinappearingandcarryingonthelitigationinthe Frenchcourtswastopreventproperty,intheirstorehouseatParis,belongingto them,andwithinthejurisdiction,butnotinthecustody,ofthosecourts,from beingtakeninsatisfactionofanyjudgmentthatmightberecoveredagainst them.Hiltonv.Guyot:159U.S.113,at204(1895).[Footnote1]
http://books.google.com/books?id=H2oUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA204#v=onepage&q&f=false

InthiscasedefendantsarecitizensoftheStateofNewYorkexcisingtheir commercialprivilegesascitizensoftheseveralStates: Itthiswerenotso,itiseasytoperceivehowthepowerofCongresstoregulate commercewithforeignnationsandamongtheseveralStatescouldbepractically annulled,andtheequalityofcommercialprivilegessecuredbytheFederal ConstitutionTOCITIZENSOFTHESEVERALSTATESbemateriallyabridgedand impaired.Guyv.CityofBaltimore:100U.S.434,439440(1879);reaffirmed,I.M. Darnell&SonCompanyv.CityofMemphis:208U.S.113,121(1908).[Footnote2]

http://books.google.com/books?id=kBc3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA439#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=OAGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q&f=false

ItistobeaddedthatacitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates,is consideredacitizenoftheseveralStateswhenonthehighseas: Actiontohaveacertainmarriagebetweenplaintiffanddefendantdeclared validandbindingupontheparties.Asecondamendedcomplaintalleged:Thaton August2,1897,defendantwasaminoroftheageof15yearsand10months,and thatherfather,oneA.C.Thomson,washernaturalandonlyguardian.Plaintiffwas oftheageof21yearsand10months,andbothplaintiffanddefendantwere citizensandresidentsofLosAngelescounty,Cal.Onsaiddayplaintiffand defendant,atLongBeach,onthecoastofCalifornia,boardedacertainfishingand pleasureschooner,of17tonsburden,calledtheJ.Willey,dulylicensedunderthe lawsoftheUnitedStates,ofwhichW.L.Piersonwascaptain,andwasenrolledas masterthereof,andhadfullchargeofsaidvessel.Saidvesselproceededtoapoint onthehighseasaboutninemilesfromthenearestpointfromtheboundaryofthe stateandoftheUnitedStates.Thepartiesthenandthereagreed,inthepresenceof saidPierson,tobecomehusbandandwife,andthesaidPiersonperformedthe ceremonyofmarriage,and,amongotherthings,theypromisedinhispresenceto takeeachotherforhusbandandwife,andhepronouncedthemhusbandandwife. Neitherpartyhadtheconsentofthefatherormotherorguardianofdefendantto saidmarriage.... Appellantcontends(1)thatthemarriageisvalidbecauseperformeduponthe highseas;and(2)thatitwouldhavebeenvalidifperformedwithinthisstate, becausethereisnolawexpresslydeclaringittobevoid.Respondentpresentsthe caseupontwopropositions,claiming(1)thatnovalidmarriagecanbecontractedin thisstate,exceptincompliancewiththeprescribedformsofthelawsofthisstate, andcontractavalidmarriage. Sections4082,4290,722,Rev.St.U.S.,arecitedbyappellantasrecognizing marriagesatseaandbeforeforeignconsuls,andthatsection722declaresthe commonlawastomarriagetobeinforceonthehighseasonboardAmerican vessels.Wehavecarefullyexaminedthestatutesreferredto,anddonotfindthat theygivetheslightestsupporttoappellantsclaim.Thelawofthesea,asitmay relatetothemarriageofcitizensoftheUnitedStatesdomiciledinCalifornia,cannot bereferredtothecommonlawofEngland,anymorethanitcantothelawofFrance orSpain,oranyotherforeigncounty.Wecanfindnolawofcongress,andnone hasbeenpointedoutbyappellant,inwhichthegeneralgovernmenthas undertakenorassumedtolegislategenerallyuponthesubjectofmarriageon thesea.Nor,indeed,canwefindinthegrantofpowerstothegeneral governmentbytheseveralstates,asexpressedinthenationalconstitution,any provisionbywhichcongressisempoweredtodeclarewhatshallconstitutea validmarriagebetweencitizensoftheseveralstatesuponthesea,[seeNote] eitherwithinorwithouttheconventionalthreemilelimitoftheshoreofanystate; 2

andclearlydoesnosuchpowerrestincongresstoregulatemarriagesonland, exceptintheDistrictofColumbiaandtheterritoriesoftheUnitedStates,orwhere ispowerofexclusivejurisdiction.Wemustlookelsewherethantotheactsof congressforthelawgoverningthecaseinhand.Normanv.Norman:54Pac.Rep. 143,143thru144(1898).

http://books.google.com/books?id=QwLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA143#v=onepage&q&f=false

(Note:...[I]tiscertainthattheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesconfersno powerwhateveruponthegovernmentoftheUnitedStatestoregulatemarriagein theStatesoritsdissolution.Andrewsv.Andrews:188U.S.14,at32(1903).

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gd4GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false)

SincethedefendantsappearedandcarriedonlitigationinthecourtsofFrance, thentheywerecitizensoftheseveralStatesandnotcitizensoftheUnitedStates. ThisisbecauseprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStatesarenotthe sameascitizensoftheUnitedStates: Wethinkthisdistinctionanditsexplicitrecognitioninthisamendmentofgreat weightinthisargument,becausethenextparagraphofthissamesection(Section1, Clause2oftheFourteenthAmendment),whichistheonemainlyreliedonbythe plaintiffsinerror,speaksONLYofprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensofthe UnitedStates,anddoesnotspeakofthose(privilegesandimmunities)of citizensoftheseveralStates.SlaughterhouseCases:83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at74 (1873).[Footnote4]
http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q=&f=false

ItistobenotedthatintheStatementoftheCasethefollowingappears: Thefirstofthesetwocaseswasanactionatlaw,broughtDecember18,1885,in theCircuitCourtoftheUnitedStatesfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork,by GustaveBertinGuyot,asofficialliquidatorofthefirmofCharlesFortin&Co.,andby thesurvivingmembersofthatfirm,allaliensandcitizensoftheRepublicofFrance, againstHenryHiltonandWilliamLibbey,citizensoftheUnitedStatesandofthe StateofNewYork,andtradingascopartners,inthecitiesofNewYorkandParis andelsewhere,underthefirmnameofA.T.Stewart&Co.Theactionwasupona judgmentrecoveredinaFrenchcourtatParisintheRepublicofFrancebythefirm 3

ofCharlesFortin&Co.,allwhosememberswereFrenchcitizens,againstHiltonand Libbey,tradingascopartnersasaforesaid,andcitizensoftheUnitedStatesand oftheStateofNewYork.(StatementoftheCase)Hiltonv.Guyot:159U.S.113,at 114(1895).

http://books.google.com/books?id=H2oUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q&f=false

Asshown,theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesidentifiedHiltonandLibbey,in itsopinion,ascitizensoftheStateofNewYork,andnotascitizensoftheUnited StatesandoftheStateofNewYork. ThereasontheywereidentifiedinpleadingsascitizensoftheUnitedStateswas probablyfromthefollowingcaseoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates: Referringto1307ofMr.JusticeStorysCommentariesontheConstitution,and thecasescited,towhichheaddedBentonv.Burgot,10S.&R.240,thelearnedjudge inquired:What,then,istherightofastatetoexerciseauthorityoverthepersonsof thosewhobelongtoanotherjurisdiction,andwhohaveperhapsnotbeenoutofthe boundariesofit?(p.450)andquotedfromVattel,Burge,andfromMr.JusticeStory (ConflictofLaws,c.14,539),thatnosovereigntycanextenditsprocessbeyond itsownterritoriallimitstosubjectotherpersonsorpropertytoitsjudicial decisions.Everyexertionofauthoritybeyondtheselimitsisamerenullity,and incapableofbindingsuchpersonsorpropertyinothertribunals,andthus continued:Suchisthefamiliar,reasonable,andjustprincipleofthelawofnations; anditisscarcesupposablethattheframersoftheConstitutiondesignedtoabrogate itbetweenStateswhichweretoremainasindependentofeachother,forallbut nationalpurposes,astheywerebeforetherevolution.....(page296) Publicistsconcurthatdomicilegenerallydeterminestheparticularterritorial jurisprudencetowhicheveryindividualissubjected.AscorrectlysaidbyMr. Wharton,thenationalityofourcitizensisthatoftheUnitedStates,andbythe lawsoftheUnitedStatestheyareboundinallmattersinwhichtheUnitedStates ARE(ISisnotused)[seeNote]sovereign;butinothermatters,theirdomicileisin theparticularState,andthatdeterminestheapplicatoryterritorialjurisprudence.A foreignjudgmentisimpeachableforwantofpersonalservicewithinthejurisdiction ofthedefendant,thisbeinginternationallyessentialtojurisdictioninallcasesin whichthedefendantisnotasubjectoftheStateenteringjudgment;anditis competentforadefendantinanactiononajudgmentofasisterState,asinan actionofaforeignjudgment,tosetupasadefense,wantofjurisdiction,inthathe wasnotaninhabitantoftheStaterenderingthejudgmentandhadnotbeenserved withprocessanddidnotenterhisappearance.Whart.ConflictLaws,32,654, 660;StoryConflictLaws,539,540,586. 4

JohnBengewasacitizenofMarylandwhenheexecutedthisobligation.The subjectmatterofthesuitagainsthiminPennsylvaniawasmerelythe determinationofhispersonalliability.Grover&BakerSewingMachineCompany v.Radcliffe:137U.S.287,at296,297thru298(1890).

http://books.google.com/books?id=htIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA296#v=onepage&q&f=false

(Note:Inthiscasetheterm,theUnitedStates,isexpressedinapluralsense, ratherthaninasingularsense.ThisusagecanbeseenintheConstitutionofthe UnitedStatesofAmericaatArticleIII,Section3,Clause1,whereatitstates: TreasonagainsttheUnitedStates,shallconsistonlyinlevyingWaragainst THEM.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)

ThetermtheUnitedStates,asusedthereinthen,referstotheseveralStates united: Atthetimeoftheformationoftheconstitution,theStatesweremembersofthe confederacyunitedunderthestyleoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,anduponthe expressconditionthateachStateretainsitssovereignty,freedom,and independence.Andtheconsiderationthat,undertheconfederation,We,the peopleoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,indubitablysignifiedthepeopleofthe severalStatesoftheUnion,asfree,independentandsovereignStates,coupledwith thefactthattheconstitutionwasacontinuationofthesameUnion(amoreperfect Union),andamererevisionorremodelingoftheconfederation,isabsolutely conclusivethat,bytheterm,theUnitedStatesismeanttheseveralStatesunited asindependentandsovereigncommunities;andbythewords,We,thepeopleof theUnitedStates,ismeantthepeopleoftheseveralStatesasdistinctandsovereign communities,andnotthepeopleofthewholeUnitedStatescollectivelyasanation. Stuntv.SteamboatOhio:4Am.Law.Reg.49,at95(1855),Dis.Ct.,HamiltonCounty, Ohio;and(samewording)PiquaBankv.Knoup,Treasurer:6Ohio261,at303thru 304(1856).
http://books.google.com/books?id=pWhKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA95#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=UfADAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA303#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thus,acitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates,isacitizenofthe severalStates(united),andnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates. 5

________________________ Footnotes: 1.Thefollowingcasesondiversityofcitizenshipshowthatthereisacitizenofthe UnitedStates,andacitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates: Thepetitionavers,thattheplaintiff,RichardRaynalKeene,isacitizenofthe stateofMaryland;andthatJamesBrown,thedefendant,isacitizenorresidentof thestateofLouisiana,holdinghisfixedandpermanentdomicilintheparishofSt. Charles.Thepetition,then,doesnotaverpositively,thatthedefendantisacitizen ofthestateofLouisiana,butinthealternative,thatheisacitizenoraresident. Consistentlywiththisaverment,hemaybeeither. ...AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesmaybecomeacitizenofthatstateinwhich hehasafixedandpermanentdomicil;butthepetitionDOESNOTAVERthatthe plaintiffisacitizenoftheUnitedStates.... Thedecisionsofthiscourtrequire,thattheavermentofjurisdictionshallbe positive,andthatthedeclarationshallstateexpresslythefactonwhichjurisdiction depends.Itisnotsufficientthatjurisdictionmaybeinferredargumentativelyfrom itsaverments. TheanswerofJamesBrownasserts,thatbothplaintiffanddefendantare citizensoftheStateofLouisiana. Withoutindicatinganyopiniononthequestion,whetheranyadmissioninthe pleacancureaninsufficientallegationofjurisdictioninthedeclaration,weareallof opinionthatthisanswerdoesnotcurethedefectofthepetition.Iftheavermentof theanswermaybelookedinto,thewholeavermentmustbetakentogether.Itis thatbothplaintiffanddefendantarecitizensofLouisiana.Brownv.Keene:33U.S. (Peters8)112,at115thru116(1834).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DUUFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q&f=false

Syllabus: Thefacts,whichinvolvedthesufficiencyofavermentsandproofofdiverse citizenshiptomaintainthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesCircuitCourt,arestated intheopinionofthecourt. Opinion: WecometothecontentionthatthecitizenshipofEdwardswasnotaverredin thecomplaintorshownbytherecord,andhencejurisdictiondidnotappear. 6

Inansweringthequestion,whethertheCircuitCourthadjurisdictionofthe controversy,wemustputourselvesintheplaceoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,and decidethequestionwithreferencetothetranscriptofrecordinthatcourt. HadthetranscriptshownnothingmoreastothestatusofEdwardsthanthe avermentofthecomplaintthathewasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,assuch anavermentwouldnotnecessarilyhaveimportedthatEdwardswasacitizenof Delaware,anegativeanswerwouldhavebeenimpelledbypriordecisions.Mexican CentralRy.Co.v.Duthie,189U.S.76;Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,155U.S.393; Dennyv.Pironi,141U.S.121;Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.646.Thewholerecord, however,maybelookedto,forthepurposeofcuringadefectiveavermentof citizenship,wherejurisdictioninaFederalcourtisassertedtodependupon diversityofcitizenship,andiftherequisitecitizenship,isanywhereexpressly averredintherecord,orfactsarethereinstatedwhichinlegalintendment constitutesuchallegation,thatissufficient.Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,supra andcasescited. Asthisisanactionatlaw,weareboundtoassumethatthetestimonyofthe plaintiffcontainedinthecertificateoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,andrecitedto havebeengivenonthetrial,waspreservedinabillofexceptions,whichformed partofthetranscriptofrecordfiledintheCircuitCourtofAppeals.Beingapartof therecord,andpropertoberesortedtoinsettlingaquestionofthecharacterof thatnowunderconsideration,Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.648,wecometoascertain whatisestablishedbytheuncontradictedevidencereferredto. Inthefirstplace,itshowsthatEdwards,priortohisemploymentontheNew YorkSunandtheNewHavenPalladium,waslegallydomiciledintheStateof Delaware.Next,itdemonstratesthathehadnointentiontoabandonsuchdomicil, forhetestifiedunderoathasfollows:OneofthereasonsIlefttheNewHaven Palladiumwas,itwastoofarawayfromhome.IlivedinDelaware,andIhadtogo backandforth.MyfamilyareoverinDelaware.Now,itiselementarythat,toeffect achangeofoneslegaldomicil,twothingsareindispensable:First,residenceina newdomicil,and,second,theintentiontoremainthere.Thechangecannotbe made,exceptfactoetanimo.Botharealikenecessary.Eitherwithouttheotheris insufficient.Mereabsencefromafixedhome,howeverlongcontinued,cannotwork thechange.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall.350. AsDelawaremust,then,beheldtohavebeenthelegaldomicilofEdwardsatthe timehecommencedthisaction,haditappearedthathewasacitizenofthe UnitedStates,itwouldhaveresulted,byoperationoftheFourteenth Amendment,thatEdwardswasalsoacitizenoftheStateofDelaware.Anderson v.Watt,138U.S.694.Bethisasitmay,however,Delawarebeingthelegal domicilofEdwards,itwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenacitizenofanother State,District,orTerritory,andhemustthenhavebeeneitheracitizenof DelawareoracitizenorsubjectofaforeignState.Ineitherofthese 7

contingencies,theCircuitCourtwouldhavehadjurisdictionoverthe controversy.But,inthelightofthetestimony,wearesatisfiedthattheavermentin thecomplaint,thatEdwardswasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,wasintended tomean,and,reasonablyconstrued,mustbeinterpretedasaverring,thatthe plaintiffwasacitizenoftheStateofDelaware.Jonesv.Andrews,10Wall.327, 331;ExpressCompanyv.Kountze,8Wall.342.SunPrinting&Publishing Associationv.Edwards:194U.S.377,at381thru383(1904).

http://books.google.com/books?id=tekGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q&f=false

ThebillfiledintheCircuitCourtbytheplaintiff,McQuesten,allegedhertobe acitizenoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStateofMassachusetts,andresidingat TurnerFallsinsaidState,whilethedefendantsSteiglederandwifewerealleged tobecitizensoftheStateofWashington,andresidingatthecityofSeattleinsaid State.StatementoftheCase,Steiglederv.McQuesten:198U.S.141(1905). TheavermentinthebillthatthepartieswerecitizensofdifferentStates wassufficienttomakeaprimafaciecaseofjurisdictionsofarasitdependedon citizenship.Opinion,Steiglederv.McQuesten:198U.S.141,at142(1905).

http://books.google.com/books?id=ceIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q&f=false

Andthereisthefollowing: ...IntheConstitutionandlawsoftheUnitedStates,thewordcitizenis generally,ifnotalways,usedinapoliticalsensetodesignateonewhohasthe rightsandprivilegesofacitizenofaStateoroftheUnitedStates.Baldwinv. Franks:120U.S.678,at690(1887).

http://books.google.com/books?id=c04GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA690#v=onepage&q&f=false

...Thereisnoinherentrightinacitizentothussellintoxicatingliquorsby retail.ItisnotaprivilegeofacitizenoftheStateorofacitizenoftheUnited States.Crowleyv.Christensen:137U.S.86,at91(1890).

http://books.google.com/books?id=htIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA91#v=onepage&q&f=false

2.ThatthereisacitizenoftheseveralStatesisshownbythefollowingcasesfrom theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates: TherecanbenodoubtthatBalk,asacitizenoftheStateofNorthCarolina,had therighttosueHarrisinMarylandtorecoverthedebtwhichHarrisowedhim. BeingacitizenofNorthCarolina,hewasentitledtoalltheprivilegesand immunitiesofcitizensoftheseveralStates,oneofwhichistherighttoinstitute 8

actionsinthecourtsofanotherState.Harrisv.Balk:198U.S.215,at223(1905).
http://books.google.com/books?id=ceIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Inspeakingofthemeaningofthephraseprivilegesandimmunitiesof citizensoftheseveralStates,undersectionsecond,articlefourth,ofthe Constitution,itwassaidbythepresentChiefJustice,inColev.Cunningham,133U.S. 107,thattheintentionwastoconferonthecitizensoftheseveralStatesageneral citizenship,andtocommunicatealltheprivilegesandimmunitieswhichthe citizensofthesameStatewouldbeentitledtounderthelikecircumstances,andthis includestherighttoinstituteactions.Maxwellv.Dow:176U.S.581,at592 (1900).[Footnote3]

http://books.google.com/books?id=8toGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA592#v=onepage&q&f=false

3.ItistobenotedthatprivilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenofaStateareinthe constitutionandlawsofaparticularState: ...Whatevermaybethescopeofsection2ofarticleIVandweneednot,in thiscaseenteruponaconsiderationofthegeneralquestiontheConstitutionof theUnitedStatesdoesnotmaketheprivilegesandimmunitiesenjoyedbythe citizensofoneStateundertheconstitutionandlawsofthatState,themeasureofthe privilegesandimmunitiestobeenjoyed,asofright,byacitizenofanotherState underitsconstitutionandlaws.McKanev.Durston:153U.S.684,at687(1894).

http://books.google.com/books?id=mmkUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA687#v=onepage&q=&f=false

4.IntheSlaughterHouseCases,16Wall.36,76,indefiningtheprivilegesand immunitiesofcitizensoftheseveralStates,thisisquotedfromtheopinionofMr. JusticeWashingtoninCorfieldv.Coryell,4Wash.Cir.Ct.371,380.Hodgesv.United States:203U.S.1,at15(1906).

http://books.google.com/books?id=HuEGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Theobjectionthattheactsabridgetheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensof theUnitedStates,withinthemeaningofthe[Fourteenth]amendment,isnot pressed,andplainlyisuntenable.Ashasbeenpointedoutrepeatedly,theprivileges andimmunitiesreferredtointheamendmentareonlysuchasowetheirexistence tothefederalgovernment,itsnationalcharacter,itsConstitution,oritslaws. Maxwellv.Bugbee,250U.S.525,537538,andcasescited.Owneyv.Morgan:256 U.S.94,at112113(1921).

http://books.google.com/books?id=1v0xAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA112#v=onepage&q&f=false