manager, * * *

* *

* *

* or

or agent of any bank, or of any person, company, or corporation, engaged in whole or in part in banking, brokerage, any person engaged in such business in whole or in part, who shall accept or receive on deposit, or for safe-keeping, or to loan, from any person, any money * for safe-keeping or for collection, when he knows, or has good reason to know, that such bank, company, or corporation, or that such person, is unsafe or insolvent, shall be punished," etc. The affidavits annexed to the requisition tended to show that the petitioner, Cook, and one Frank Leake, in May, 1889, opened a banking office at Juneau, in the county of Dodge, styled the "Bank of Juneau," and entered upon and engaged in a general banking business, with a pretended capital of $10,000, and continued in such business, soliciting and receiving deposits up to and including June 20, 1890, when the bank closed its doors; that during all this time Cook had the general supervision of the business, and was the principal owner of the bank, and all business was transacted by him personally, or by his direction by one Richardson, acting as his agent; that Cook frequently visited the bank, and well knew its condition; that from January 6 to June 20, 1890, Cook, by the inducements and pretenses held out by the bank, received deposits from the citizens of that county to the amount of $25,000; that this was done by the express order and direction of Cook, and such amount appeared upon the books of the bank at the time it failed as due to its depositors; that Cook, while receiving these deposits, drew out of the bank all of its pretended capital stock, if any were ever put in, and also all the deposits, except the sum of $5,048 in money and securities, which was in the bank at the time it closed; that on June 23, 1890, Cook and Leake assigned their property for the benefit of their creditors; that on the 6th of January, 1890, and from that time onward, Cook knew, and had good reason to know, that both he and Leake and the bank were each and all of them unsafe and insolvent; that on June 20, 1890, at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, the said Cook and Leake accepted and received a deposit in said bank from one Herman Becker to the amount of $175 in money; and that said deposit was received by direction and order of the said Cook, he knowing that said bank was unsafe and insolvent. There was also annexed a complaint setting forth substantially the same facts, and a warrant issued by a justice of the peace for Dodge county for the apprehension of Cook. Upon the production of this requisition, with the documents so attached, the governor of Illinois issued his warrant for the arrest and delivery of Cook to the defendant, as agent of the executive authority of the state of Wisconsin. Cook was arrested by the sheriff of Cook county, Ill., and on the same day, and while still in the custody of the sheriff, procured a writ of

habeas corpus from the circuit court of Cook county to test the legality of his arrest. That court, on June 6, 1891, decided that the arrest was legal, remanded Cook to the custody of the sheriff, and he was thereupon delivered to the defendant as executive agent, and conveyed to Wisconsin, where he was examined before the magistrate issuing the warrant, and held to answer the charge. During the September term of the circuit court of that county an information was filed against him, charging him with the offense set out in the original complaint. Upon his application the trial was continued to the term of said court beginning in February, 1892. He appeared, and was arraigned at that term, pleaded not guilty, and the trial was begun, when, and during the pendency of such trial, Cook sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the circuit court of the United States, claiming that his extradition from Illinois to Wisconsin was in violation of the constitution and laws of the United States. It was established upon the hearing, to the satisfaction of the court below, that Cook for some years prior to the 20th day of June, 1890, and for some years prior to his arrest upon the warrant of the executive of Illinois, had been, and still was, a resident of the city of Chicago; that he made occasional visits to Wisconsin in connection with his banking business at Juneau and elsewhere; that he left Chicago on June 17, 1890, and went to Hartford, in the county of Washington, state of Wisconsin, where he spent the whole of the 18th day of June, proceeding thence to Beaver Dam, in the county of Dodge, where he was engaged during the whole of the 19th, day of June with business not connected with the Bank of Juneau; that early in the morning of June 20th he left Beaver Dam, and made a continuous journey to Chicago, arriving there at 2 o'clock in the afternoon; and that he did not, on the occasion of that visit to Wisconsin, visit or pass through the village of Juneau, and had not been there for some three weeks prior to the closing of the bank on June 20th. It was also conceded at the hearing that the particular deposit by Herman Becker, charged in the complaint upon which the requisition proceedings were had, was actually made at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of June 20th, and after the petitioner's arrival in Chicago.

Upon the hearing of the writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner was remanded to the custody of the defendant, (49 Fed. Rep. 833,) and thereupon he appealed to this court.

Chas. H. Aldrich, for appellant. W. C. Williams, for appellee.

*Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the* facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

Petitioner claims his discharge upon the ground that he is accused of having illegally received a deposit in his bank at Juneau, when in fact he had not been in Juneau within three weeks before the deposit was

received, and that, at the time it was received, which was about 4 o'clock in the afternoon of June 20, 1890, he was in Illinois, and had been in that state for more than two hours before the deposit was received. He had in fact left Beaver Dam, Wis., at an early hour that day, and traveled continuously to Chicago, not stopping at Juneau, and having no actual knowledge of the illegal deposit charged. Upon this state of facts petitioner insists that his journey from Wisconsin to Illinois was not a "fleeing from justice,' within the meaning of article 4, § 2, of the constitution; that it is essential to the jurisdiction of the trial court that he should have been a fugitive from justice; and hence that the circuit court of Dodge county was without authority to try him for the offense charged, and he should therefore be relieved from its custody upon this writ of habeas corpus.

99

We regard this case as controlled in all its essential features by those of Kerr v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225, and Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1204. The former case arose upon a writ of error to the supreme court of Illinois. The petitioner had pleaded, in abatement to an indictment for larceny in the criminal court of Cook county, that he had been kidnapped from the city of Lima, in Peru, forcibly placed on board a vessel of the United States in the harbor of Callao, carried to San Francisco, and sent from there to Illinois upon a requisition made upon the governor of California. After disposing of the point that he had not been deprived of his liberty without "due process of law," the court intimated, in reply to an objection that the petitioner was not a fugitive from justice in the state of California, that "when the governor of one state voluntarily surrenders a fugitive from the justice of another state to answer for his alleged offenses, it is hardly a proper subject of inquiry on the trial of the case to examine into the details of the proceedings by which the demand was made by the one state, and the manner in which it was responded to by the other." The court further held that the petitioner had not acquired by his residence in Peru a right of asylum there, a right to be free from molestation for the crime committed in Illinois, or a right that he should only be removed thereto in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of extradition; and winds up the opinion by observing that "the question of how far his forcible seizure in another country, and transfer by violence, force, or fraud to this country, could be made available to resist trial in the state court for the offense now charged upon him, is one which we do not feel called upon to decide, for in that transaction we do not see that the constitution or laws or treaties of the United States guaranty him any protection. There are authorities of the highest respectability which hold that such forcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought

within the jurisdiction of the court which, has the right to try him for such an offense.; * * * However this may be, the decision of that question is as much within the prov. ince of the state court as a question of common law, or of the law of nations, of which that court is bound to take notice, as it is of the courts of the United States."

The case of Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1204, arose upon an application of the governor of West Virginia to the district court of the United States for the district of Kentucky for the release of Mahon upon a writ of habeas corpus, upon the ground that he had been, while residing in West Virginia, and in violation of her laws, without warrant or other legal process, arrested by a body of armed men from Kentucky, and, by force and against his will, carried out of the state to answer to a charge of murder in the state of Kentucky. As stated in the opinion of the court, the gov ernor "proceeded upon the theory that it was the duty of the United States to secure the inviolability of the territory of the state from a lawless invasion of persons from other states, and, when parties had been forcibly taken from her territory and jurisdiction, to afford the means of compelling their return." This court held that, while the accused had the right, while in West Virginia, of insisting that he should not be surrendered to the governor of Kentucky, except in pursuance of the acts of congress, and was entitled to release from any arrest in that state not made in accordance with them, yet that, as he had been subsequently arrested in Kentucky under the writs issued under the indictments against him, the question was not as to the validity of the arrest in West Virginia, but as to the legality of his detention in Kentucky. "The only question, therefore," said the court, "presented for our determination is whether a person indicted for a felony in one state, forcibly abducted from another state and brought to the state where he was indicted by parties acting without warrant or authority of law, is entitled, under the constitution or laws of the United States, to release from detention under the indictment by reason of such forcible and unlawful abduction." After a full review of all the prior authorities upon the point, the court came to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the court of the state in which the indictment was found was not impaired by the manner in which the accused was brought before it. "There is, indeed," said the court, "an entire concurrence of opinion as to the ground upon which a release of the appellant in the present case is asked, namely, that his forcible abduction from another state, and conveyance within the jurisdiction of the court holding him, is no objection to his detention and trial for the offense charged. They all proceed upon the obvious ground that the offender against the law of the state is not relieved from liability because of personal injuries received from private parties, or be

cause of indignities committed against another state."

There was a vacancy in the office of chief justice at the time, and two members of the court (Mr. Justice Bradley and Mr. Justice Harlan) dissented upon the ground that the constitution had provided a peaceful remedy for the surrender of persons charged with crime; that this clearly implied that there should be no resort to force for this purpose; that the cases upon which the court relied had arisen where a criminal had been seized in one country and forcibly taken to another for trial, in the absence of any international treaty of extradition; and that, as the application in that case was made by the governor of the state whose territory had been lawlessly invaded, he was entitled to a redelivery of the person charged.

These cases may be considered as establishing two propositions: (1) That this court will not interfere to relieve persons who have been arrested and taken by violence from the territory of one state to that of another, where they are held under process legally issued from the courts of the latter state; (2) that the question of the applicability of this doctrine to a particular case is as much within the province of a state court, as a question of common law or of the law of nations, as it is of the courts of the United States.

An attempt is made to distinguish the case under consideration from the two above cit ed, in the fact that those were cases of kidnapping by third parties, by means of which the accused were brought within the jurisdiction of the trial state, and the state had not acted, as here, under legal process, or been in any way a party to the proceedings; that they were cases of tort, for which the injured parties could sue the tort feasors, while in the case under consideration the action is under and by virtue of an act of congress, and hence the party can ask this court to inquire whether the power thus invoked was properly exercised. The distinction between cases of kidnapping by the violence of unauthorized persons without the semblance of legal action, and those wherein the extradition is conducted under the forms of law, but the governor of the surrendering state has mistaken his duty, and delivered up one who was not in fact a fugitive from justice, is one which we do not deem it necessary to consider at this time. We have no doubt that the governor upon whom the demand is made must determine for himself, in the first instance, at least, whether the party charged is in fact a fugitive from justice, (Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S. 642, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1148; Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 291;) but whether his decision thereon be final is a question proper to be determined by the courts of that state. A proceeding of that kind was undertaken in this case when Cook applied to the state circuit court of Chicago to obtain a writ of habeas corpus to test the legality of his arrest. Upon the hearing of this writ the court decided the ar

rest to be legal, and remanded Cook to the custody of the sheriff, by whom he was delivered to the defendant as executive agent of the state of Wisconsin. Cook acquiesced in this disposition of the case, and made no attempt to obtain a review of the judgment in a superior court. Long after his arrival in Wisconsin, however, and after the trial of his case had begun, he made this application to the circuit court of the United States for that district upon the ground he had originally urged, namely, that he was not a fugitive from justice, within the meaning of the constitution and laws of the United States. That court decided against him, holding that he had been properly surrendered.

It is proper to observe in this connection that, assuming the question of flight to be jurisdictional, if that question be raised before the executive or the courts of the surrendering state, it is presented in a somewhat different aspect after the accused has* been delivered over to the agent of the demanding state, and has actually entered the territory of that state, and is held under the process of its courts. The authorities above cited, if applicable to cases of interstate extradition, where the forms of law have been observed, doubtless tend to support the theory that the executive warrant has spent its force when the accused has been delivered to the demanding state; that it is too late for him to object even to jurisdictional defects in his surrender; and that he is rightfully held under the process of the demanding state. In fact it is said by Mr. Justice Miller in Kerr v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 441, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225, that "the case does not stand where the party is in court, and required to plead to an indictment, as it would have stood upon a writ of habeas corpus in California." Some reasons are, however, suggested for holding that, if he were not in fact a fugitive from justice, and entitled to be relieved upou that ground by the courts of the surrendering state, he ought not to be deprived of that right by a forced deportation from its territory before he could have an opportunity of suing out a writ of habeas corpus. That question, however, does not not necessarily arise in this case, since the record before us shows that he did sue out such writ before the criminal court of Cook county, and acquiesced in its decision remanding him to the custody of the officer.

As the defense in this case is claimed to be jurisdictional, and, in any aspect, is equally available in the state as in the federal courts, we do not feel called upon at this time to consider it, or to review the propriety of the decision of the court below. We adhere to the views expressed in Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734, and Ex parte Fonda, 117 U. S. 516, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 848, that, where a person is in custody under process from a state court of original jurisdiction for an alleged offense against the laws of that state, and it is claimed that he is restrained of his liberty in violation of the con

stitution of the United States, the circuit court of the United States has a discretion whether it will discharge him in advance of his trial in the court in which he is indicted, although this discretion will be subordinated to any special circumstances requiring immediate action. While the federal courts have the power and may discharge the accused in advance of his trial, if he is restrained of his liberty in violation of the federal constitution or laws, they are not bound to exercise such power even after a state court has finally acted upon the case, but may, in their discretion, require the accused to sue out his writ of error from the highest court of the state, or even from the supreme court of the United States. As was said in Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624, 637, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 544: "Upon the state courts, equally with the courts of the Union, rests the obligation to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof, whenever those rights are involved in any suit or proceeding before them." We are unable to see in this case any such special circumstances as were suggested in the case of Ex parte Royall as rendering it proper for a federal court to interpose before the trial of the case in the state court. While the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to state courts which are proceeding in disregard of rights secured by the constitution and laws of the United States may exist, the practice of exercising such power before the question has been raised or determined in the state court is one which ought not to be encouraged. The party charged waives no defect of jurisdiction by submitting to a trial of his case upon the merits, and we think that comity demands that the state courts, under whose process he is held, and which are, equally with the federal courts, charged with the duty of protecting the accused in the enjoyment of his constitutional rights, should be appealed to in the first instance. Should such rights be denied, his remedy in the federal court will remain unimpaired. So far from there being special circumstances in this case to show that the federal court ought to interfere, the fact that, with ample opportunity to do so, he did not apply for this writ until after the jury had been sworn and his trial begun in the state court, is of itself a special circumstance to indicate that the federal court should not interpose at this time.

The judgment of the court below refusing the discharge is therefore aflirmed.

when federal jurisdiction depends on diverse citizenship, a corporation cannot be sued in a state or district merely because it is doing bus iness there, but suit can only be maintained in the state of its incorporation or in the district of plaintiff's residence. Shaw v. Mining Co., 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 935, 145 U. S. 444, followed. 2. Gen. Laws Tex. 1887, p. 116, requires a foreign corporation, as a condition precedent to doing business in the state, to file in the secre tary of state's office a resolution of its directors authorizing service of process on its agents in the state, and requesting the issuance of a permit to do business therein, with a stipulation that such permit shall be subject to "each of the provisions of this act." One of these provisions is that the permit shall be void if the corporation removes any case from a state to a federal court on the ground of nonresidence or local prejudice. Held, that the act is void as requiring a surrender of rights secured by the constitution and laws of the United States, and the filing of such a request by a foreign corporation does not change its residence so as to give jurisdiction to a federal court in a district of the state where plaintiff does not reside.

3. Where the want of jurisdiction in a federal court is apparent on the face of the petition, it may be taken advantage of by demurrer.

4. Rev. St. Tex. 1879, arts. 1241-1244, providing that any appearance in behalf of defendant, though in terms limited to the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction, shall constitute a waiver of objection to the jurisdiction on the ground of nonresidence, are not rendered applicable to the federal courts by Rev. St. U. S. § 914, which requires the forms of procedure to conform "as nearly as may be" to the state practice; and such an appearance in a federal court constitutes no waiver of the jurisdictional question.

In error to the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Texas. Reversed.

J. Hubley Ashton, for plaintiff in error. D. A. McKnight, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action brought January 29, 1889, in the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Texas, against the Southern Pacific Company, by Elizabeth Jane Denton, to recover damages to the amount of $4,970, for the death of her son, by the defendant's negligence, near Paisano, in the county of Presidio, on January 31, 1888. The petition alleged that "the plaintiff is a citi zen of the state of Texas, and resides in the county of Red River, in said state; that the defendant is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the state of Kentucky, is a citizen of the state of Kentucky, and is and at the institution of this suit was a resident of El Paso county, in the state of Texas;" that at the day aforesaid, and ever since, "the defendant was and is engaged in the business of running and propelling cars for the conveyance of freight and passengers over the line of railway extending eastwardly from the city of El Paso, Tex., into and through the counties of El Paso and Presidio and the city of San Antonio, all of the state of Texas; that the defendant is now doing business as aforesaid, and has an agent for the transaction of its business in the city and county of El Paso, Tex., to wit, W. E. Jessup." The

$203

the fact that the action is between citizens of

The defendant, by leave of court, filed “an answer or demurrer," "for the special purpose, and no other, until the question herein raised is decided, of objecting to the jurisdiction of this court," demurring and excepting to the petition. because, upon the allegations above quoted, "it appears that this suit ought, if maintained at all in the state of Texas, to be brought in the district of the residence of the plaintiff, that is to say, in the eastern district of Texas; and the defendant prays judgment whether this court has jurisdiction, and it asks to be dismissed, with its costs; but, should the court overrule this demurrer and exception, the defendant then asks time and leave to answer to the merits, though excepting to the action of the court in overruling said demurrer."

The court overruled the demurrer, and allowed a bill of exceptions tendered by the defendant, which stated that the defendant by the demurrer raised the question of the jurisdiction of the court; "and that the court having inspected the same, as well as the pleadings of the plaintiff, and it appearing therefrom that the plaintiff is alleged to be a citizen of Texas, residing in Red River county, in the eastern judicial district of said state, and that the defendant is a corporation created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Kentucky, and is a citizen of that state, but operating a line of railway, doing business in, and having an agent on whom process may be served in, the county and judicial district in which this suit is pending, and the court, being of opinion that the facts alleged show this cause to be in the district of the residence of the defendant, and that it ought to take cognizance of the same, overruled said demurrer."

The defendant, after its demurrer had been overruled, answered to the merits, and a trial by jury was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $4,515. The defendant, on May 10, 1890, sued out this writ of error on the question of jurisdiction only, under the act of February 25, 1889, c. 236, (25 St. p. 693.) The plainiff has now moved to dismiss the writ of error or to affirm the judgment, and the motion has been submitted on briefs under rules 6 (3 Sup. Ct. Rep. vi.) and 32 (Id. xvi.) of this court.

By the act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 1, as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, "no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another in any civil action before a circuit or district court; and no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; but, where the jurisdiction is founded only on

|

the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant." 24 St. p. 552;, 25 St. p. 434.

66

This is a case where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states." The question whether under that act the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Texas had jurisdiction of the case is a question involving the jurisdiction of that court, which this court is empowered, by the act of February 25, 1889, c. 236, to review by writ of error, although the judgment below was for less than $5,000.

The allegations made in the petition, and admitted by the demurrer, bearing upon this question, are that the plaintiff was a citizen of Texas, and resided in the eastern district thereof, and that the defendant was a corporation incorporated by the law of Kentucky and a citizen of that state, and was a resident of the western district of Texas, doing busi ness and having an agent in this district, The necessary legal effect of these allegation is that the defendant was a corporation and a citizen of Kentucky only, doing business in the western district of Texas; and consequently could not be compelled to answer to an action at law in a circuit court of the United States, except either in the state of Kentucky, in which it was incorporated, or in the eastern district of Texas, in which the plaintiff, a citizen of Texas, resided. It has long been settled that an allegation that a party is a "resident" does not show that he is a "citizen," within the meaning of the judiciary acts; and to hold otherwise in this case would be to construe the petition as alleging that the defendant was a citizen of the same state with the plaintiff, and thus utterly defeat the jurisdiction. The case is governed by the decision of this court at the last term, by which it was adjudged that the act of 1887, having taken away the alternative, permitted in the earlier acts, of suing a person in the district "in which he shall be found," requires an action at law, the jurisdiction of which is founded only upon its being between citizens of different states, to be brought in the state of which one is a citizen, and in the district therein of which he is an inhabitant and resident; and that a corporation cannot, for this purpose, be considered a citizen or a resident of a state in which it has not been incorporated. Shaw v. Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444, 449, 453, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 935.

It may be assumed that the exemption' from being sued in any other district might be waived by the corporation, by appearing generally, or by answering to the merits of the action, without first objecting to the jurisdiction. Railway Co. v. McBride, 141 U. S. 127, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 982; Railway Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 905.

But in the present case there was no such waiver. The want of jurisdiction, being ap