§ 708. Same-Treaty provisions removing disability of alien to take and hold land. It is a doctrine firmly established by a long and unbroken line of decisions of the supreme court of the United States, that the law of the state in which land is situated governs and controls its descent and transfer by deed or devise or other means of alienation, and to that law the courts, state and federal, must look for the effect of such instruments and the rules for their construction; 83 and a treaty provision bestowing upon aliens the capacity to take and hold land by descent or purchase is a removal of a political disability of the alien, and not a repeal or modification of the land laws of the state where the land lies, nor even a suspension of those laws, for, the disability of alienage being removed by the treaty provision, the alien takes under the law of the state, the treaty in such case acting upon and affecting the political status of the alien, and leaving the state law in force; 84 and the general government in removing by treaty the political disability of the alien, and in changing his political status, and granting to him a new political capacity, does nothing more than the state, itself, ean do by appropriate legislation, and such legislation by a state does not contravene the federal constitution nor constitute the basis of a federal question giving the federal courts jurisdiction, 85 83 De Vaughn v..Hutchinson, 165 U. S. 566-578 (41:827); Clark v. Clark, 178 U. S. 186–195 (44:1028); United States v. Crosby, 7 Cranch, 115 (3:287); Clark v. Graham, 6 Wheat. 577 (5:334); McGoon v. Scales, 9 Wall, 23 (19:545); Brine v. Ins. Co., 96 U. S. 627 (24:858); 1 Bates Fed. Eq. Proc. sec. 70 and authorities there cited. 84 People v. Gerke, 5 Cal. 381; Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cranch, 603632 (3:453). 85 Blythe v. Hinckley, 180 U. S. 333-342 (45:557); Hanrick v. Patrick, 119 U. S. 156-176 (30:396). In Fairfax v. Hunter, supra., Story, justice, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "It is clear by the common law, that an alien can take lands by purchase, though not by descent; or in other words he cannot take by the act of law, but he may by the act of the party. The principle has been settled in the year books, and has been uniformly recognized as sound law from that time. Nor is there any distinction, whether the purchase be by grant or by devise. In either case the estate vests in the alien, not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the state; or in the language of the ancient law, the alien has the capacity to take but not to hold lands, and they may be seized into the hands of the sovereign. But until the lands are so seized, the alien has complete § 709. Jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.-The circuit courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, in which there is a controversy between citizens of different states, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars.S § 710. Same-Not residence, but citizenship.-Citizenship and residence are not synonymous terms; and an averment of residence is not the equivalent of an averment of citizenship, and is insufficient to give the circuit court jurisdiction of a cause, and this rule is not changed by the declaration in the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States, and of the states where they reside." The rule since the amendment, as well as before it is that, the plaintiff must distinctly allege that he and the defendant are citizens of different states.8 § 711. Same-Territories not states within the meaning of the federal constitution and judiciary acts.-The territories of the United States and the District of Columbia are not states within the meaning of the provisions of the federal constitution and the judiciary acts defining the jurisdiction of the federal courts; and the circuit courts of the United States have no jurisdiction of suits between citizens of the territories of the United * dominion over the same. He is a tween alien friends and alien enemies. During the war, the property of alien enemies is subject to confiscation jure belli, and their civil capacity to sue is suspended." 86 25 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 866, sec. 1, p. 434; 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. 265, 266; 1 U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 507, 508. 87 Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646-651 (24:1057); Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 137-143 (15:318); Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121-126 (35:657); Ederhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U. S. 223 (30:623); Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253 (30:914); Grace v. Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 278-285 (27:932). States or the District of Columbia on one side, and citizens of a state on the other side, where that jurisdiction is based alone upon the citizenship of the parties.ss § 712. Same-Corporation created by a state a citizen thereof.-A corporation created by a state is, within the meaning of the second section of the third article of the federal constitution extending the judicial power of the United States to controversies "between citizens of different states," and within the meaning of the federal judiciary acts distributing that judicial power, a citizen of the state which created it, and is a competent party, either as plaintiff or defendant, to sustain the jurisdiction of a federal circuit court in a suit at law or in equity in which the jurisdiction is based upon diversity of the citizenship of the parties.89 § 713. Same Same-Incorporated in more than one state. While it is true that a corporation created by one state may be created a corporation of another state by the legislature of the latter state, in regard to property and acts within its territorial limits, yet such corporation, for the purposes of suing and being sued in the federal courts, and for the purposes of the jurisdiction of those courts, remains a citizen of the state which first created it.90 § 714. Same-Citizenship of national banks for purposes of jurisdiction. By federal statutory provisions, all national banking associations incorporated under the laws of the United States are, for the purposes of suing and being sued in the courts of the United States, deprived of their character as federal corporations, and are to be deemed citizens of the states 91 88 Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445 (2:332); New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91-95 (4:44); Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280-291 (18:825); Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U. S 395-399 (41:1049). 89 Ry. Co. v. James, 161 U. S. 545-572 (40:802); Southern Ry. Co. v. Allison, 191 U. S. 326-339 (47:1078); Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. v. Louisville Trust Co., 174 U. S. 552-577 (43: 1081); Doctor v. Harrington, 196 U. S. 579-589 (49:606); Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston R. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497-559 (11: 353); Marshall v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 16 How. 314 (14:953). 90 Southern Ry. Co. v. Allison, 190 U. S. 326-339 (47:1078); Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. v. Louisville Trust Co., 174 U. S. 552-577 (43:1081); Ry. Co. v. James, 161 U. S. 545-572 (40:802); St. Joseph & Grand Island R. Co. v. Steele, 167 U. S. 659-664 (42: 315). 91 22 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 290, in which they are respectively located, and are deprived of the privilege of suing or being sued in the federal courts, except in cases where diversity of citizenship authorizes actions to be brought." § 715. Same-A state not a citizen.—A state is not a citizen; and it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen or corporation of another state is not a suit between citizens of different states, and a circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction of such suit, unless it arises under the constitution or a law or a treaty of the United States.93 § 716. Same Same Suit brought by state on relation of a person. A suit brought in a circuit court of the United States by a state upon the relation of a person, upon an official bond of an officer, or the bond of an administrator made payable to the state, for the benefit of persons injured by breaches of its condition, must be treated, so far as the jurisdiction of the court is concerned, as though the relator, or person for whose benefit the suit is prosecuted, was alone named as plaintiff. In such cases, the name of the state is used from necessity, brought about by the rules of pleading, for the benefit of the interested party, who is usually called the relator, and the real controversy is between him and the obligors on the bond, and if there be diversity of citizenship as between them, and the requisite jurisdictional amount be involved, the circuit court will have jurisdiction of the cause.** § 717. Same-Persons standing in a fiduciary relation suing or sued. When the jurisdiction of the court is invoked upon the ground of the diversity of the citizenship of the parties, and the plaintiff or defendant sustains a fiduciary relation to the subject-matter of the suit, as administrator, guardian or trustee, if such person is by law authorized to sue or defend sec. 4, p. 162; Leather Mfg., National Bank v. Cooper, 120 U. S.. 778-784 (30:816); Whitmore V. Amoskeag National Bank, 134 U. S. 527-530 (33.1002). 92 24 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 373, sec. 4, p. 552; 25 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 866, sec. 4, p. 434; Petre et al. v. Commercial National Bank of Chicago, 142 U. S. 644-651 (35: 1144); Ex parte Jones, 164 U. S. 691-694 (41:601). 93 Postal Telegraph Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482-488 (39:231); Arkansas v. Kansas & Texas Coal Co., 183 U. S. 185-191 (46:144). 94 State of Indiana, ex rel Stanton v. Glover, 155 U. S. 513-522 (39:243); State of Maryland for the use of Markely v. Baldwin, 112 U. S. 490-495 (28:822). without joining as parties the persons beneficially interested, the jurisdiction of the court is to be determined by the citizenship of the party suing or sued, and not by the citizenship of the persons beneficially interested.95 § 718. Same-Suit by assignee of chose in action.-It is provided by the judiciary act now in force that no circuit or district court shall "have cognizance of any suit, except upon foreign bills of exchange, to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent holder if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not made by any corporation, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment or transfer had been made." "G The decisions of the supreme court, construing this provision of the statute, have established the following propositions, namely: (1) A suit to recover the contents of a promissory note or other chose in action is a suit to recover the amount due upon such note, or the amount claimed to be due upon an account, personal contract, or other chose in action; (2) a suit to foreclose a mortgage is within the inhibition of the act, and can only be maintained where the assignor was competent to file the bill; (3) the bill or other pleading must contain an averment showing that the suit could have been maintained by the assignor if no assignment had been made; (4) a suit may be maintained between the immediate parties to a promissory note as endorser and endorsee, provided the requisite diversity of citizenship appears as between them, or upon a new contract arising subsequently to the execution of the original, notwithstanding a suit could not have been maintained upon the original contract, and in such cases the original contract may be considered to ascertain the amount of the damages.97 95 Mexican Central R. Co. v. Eckman, 187 U. S. 429-436 (47:245); Dodge v. Tulley, 144 U. S. 451-458 (36:501); Rice v. Houston, 13 Wall. 66-68 (20:484); Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172-178 (20: 179); Bonafee v. Williams, 3 How. 574-577 (11:732); Harper v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 36 Fed. R. 102; Shirk v. City of La Fayette, 52 Fed. R. 857; Davies v. Lathorp, 12 Fed. R. 353; Browne v. Browne, 1 96 25 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 866, sec. 1, p. 433. 97 Kolze v. Hoadley, 200 U. S. 76-86 (50:377), and authorities there collated and classified; Mexican National R. Co. v. Davidson, 157 U. S. 201-209 (39:672), and authorities there collated; Ameri |