Where law compels use of name of public officer who has not any interest in suit, the Federal courts consider, for jurisdictional purposes, only those as parties between whom litigation before them exists.

Approved in Taylor v. Weir, 171 Fed. 640, 96 C. C. A. 438, applying rule in suit against president of association as representing association; State of Florida v. Anderson, 91 U. S. 677, 23 L. Ed. 297, holding suit by public trustees to be an action by the State, giving jurisdiction to Federal Supreme Court; Walden v. Skinner, 101 U. S. 589, 25 L. Ed. 968, holding jurisdiction of Federal court not defeated because executor of trustee is merely joined to perform ministerial act; Patterson v. Mater, 26 Fed. 32, where marshal was mere nominal party, having no pecuniary interest; May v. St. John, 38 Fed. 771, where mayor, treasurer and recorder were held mere nominal parties.

Distinguished in New Orleans v. Gaines, 138 U. S. 607, 34 L. Ed. 1106, 11 Sup. Ct. 431, holding subrogated creditor, by operation of law, entitled to stand upon his own citizenship as regards jurisdiction; Shipp V. Williams, 62 Fed. 6, 10 C. C. A. 247, holding trustee not a nominal party, and his citizenship therefore material as to jurisdiction.

Representation of bondholders by mortgage trustee. Note, 16
L. R. A. (N. S.) 1010.

Where defect in jurisdiction on account of citizenship of parties is apparent from averments in bill, it may be reached by demurrer or motion at any stage in proceedings.

Approved in Eldred v. American Palace Car Co., 103 Fed. 210, vacating decree entered pro confesso where nonresidents of defendant corporation apparent on face of bill; Lowry v. Tile, Mantel etc. Co., 98 Fed. 823, holding defendant demurring appeared generally and waived nonjoinder of codefendants on ground of wrong venue; Southern Pac. Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 206, 36 L. Ed. 944, 13 Sup. Ct. 46, where want of jurisdiction was apparent on face of petition; Meyer v. Herrera, 41 Fed. 65, holding defect in jurisdiction properly reached by demurrer; Laskey v. Newtown Mining Co., 50 Fed. 636, sustaining demurrer where averments of complaint failed to show jurisdiction; Municipal Inv. Co. v. Gardiner, 62 Fed. 955, dismissing bill on demurrer.

Plea of abatement is required only where citizenship averred is such as to support jurisdiction, and defendant desires to controvert it.

Approved in Sharon v. Hill, 10 Sawy. 668, 26 Fed. 723, holding question of citizenship of parties conclusively determined on plea in abatement; Pond v. Vermont etc. R. R. Co., 12 Blatchf. 297, Fed. Cas. 11,265, holding it too late to interpose plea after answer on the merits; Gager v. Harrison, 9 Fed. Cas. 1031, holding denial of citizenship of parties could not be pleaded with the merits; Fisk v. Henarie, 13 Sawy. 43,

32 Fed. 421, holding sufficiency of affidavit required in removal of cause to Federal court not open to question.

Distinguished in Curnow v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 44 Fed. 305, holding motion to remand, supported by petition denying diverse citizenship, sufficient traverse of petition to remove.

Question of sufficient jurisdictional citizenship constitutes no part of the issue upon the merits.

Approved in Consolidated Wyoming etc. Min. Co. v. Champion Min. Co., 62 Fed. 949, holding that question of value, so far as fixing jurisdiction, constituted no part of issue upon merits.

Liability as for negligence of trustee in corporate mortgage to bondholder. Note, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 240.

Bondholder's right to sue for enforcement of trust deed. Note, 20 L. R. A. 536.

11 Wall. 178-184, 20 L. Ed. 131, UNITED STATES v. O'KEEFE.

All governments possess immunity from suit, and it is only in spirit of liberality, and to promote ends of justice, that they ever allow themselves to be brought into court.

Approved in dissenting opinion in United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 227, 27 L. Ed. 184, 1 Sup. Ct. 266, majority holding that suit could be maintained against persons holding property as officers of the United States.

Although in England mandatory process cannot issue against sovereign, the law allows subject, by petition, to inform king of nature of grievance, and relief is granted as of course, except in extraordinary cases; the privilege is available to citizens of United States.

Disapproved in In re Miller, 5 Mackey (D. C.), 510, refusing to consider petition of right seeking to have civil service commission declared unconstitutional; United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 205, 27 L. Ed. 176, 188, 1 Sup. Ct. 248, 276, holding action could be maintained against parties holding property as officers and agents of United States; The Fidelity, 16 Blatchf. 574, Fed. Cas. 4758, holding vessel belonging to municipality of New York could not be seized.

Congress intended to confer on British subjects right to sue in Court of Claims, under act relating to captured and abandoned property, if similar rights were secured to American citizens in England. Such right therefore exists.

Approved in New York & O. S. S. Co. v. United States, 202 Fed. 312, holding Federal court has no jurisdiction of those suits originally brought by aliens in Court of Claims; Columbia Nat. Sand Dredging

Co. v. Morton, 28 App. D. C. 301, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 114, arguendo; Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall. 156, 21 L. Ed. 430, action by British subject to recover proceeds from sale of cotton confiscated during the Rebellion; Young v. United States, 97 U. S. 62, 24 L. Ed. 998, similar action by British subject who was a nonresident during the war; Phelps v. McDonald, 99 U. S. 307, 25 L. Ed. 476, holding that United States court could determine rights of parties to fund paid English government for one of its subjects.

11 Wall. 185–192, 20 L. Ed. 74, LEON v. GALCERAN.

Mariners, in suit to recover wages, may proceed against owner or master of ship in personam, or they may proceed in rem against ship, or ship and freight, at their election.

Approved in Rounds v. Cloverport Foundry etc. Co., 237 U. S. 307, 59 L. Ed. 968, 35 Sup. Ct. 596, holding suit against owner and attachment on vessel to cover supplies furnished not within admiralty jurisdiction; Keithley v. North Pac. S. S. Co., 232 Fed. 257, holding suit by longshoreman for injuries sustained while vessel in navigable waters may be brought in State or Federal courts; Berton v. Tietjen & Lang Dry Dock Co., 219 Fed. 770, holding suit by workman sustained while vessel in drydock not within admiralty jurisdiction; The Ira M. Hedges, 163 Fed. 590, holding owner of vessel, liable for damages in State court, cannot seek contribution from another vessel in Federal court; Kennerson v. Thames Towboat Co., 89 Conn. 373, L. R. A. 1916A, 436, 94 Atl. 375, holding suit for workman's compensation may be brought in State where contract of employment entered into; Galvin v. Huntley, 178 Mass. 31, 59 S. E. 435, upholding State court's jurisdiction of action by discharged seaman for wrongful discharge before month up; Sevier v. Mitchell, 72 Or. 490, 142 Pac. 782, holding in suit in personam in State court, defendant shipping company may set up nonliability on account of dangers of navigable waters; Smith v. Oakes, 141 Mass. 454, 55 Am. Rep. 488, 5 N. E. 826, holding action at law proper remedy to recover seaman's wages.

Distinguished in Murray v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., 207 Fed. 690, 692, holding suit against owner for payment under Workmen's Compensation Act is suit in personam, and not within admiralty jurisdiction; The Saratoga, 204 Fed. 954, 123 C. C. A. 274, holding Code Va. 1904, § 2963, does not give lien on vessel for supplies furnished, but only right of attachment in action for debt.

If suit to recover mariners' wages is in rem, the District Court has exclusive original jurisdiction; if in personam, mariner may proceed by libel in District Court, or an action at law in Circuit Court, if parties are citizens

of different States, or in State court, under common-law jurisdiction, as provided by judiciary act.

Approved in North American Transportation etc. Co. v. Gill, 203 U. S. 579, 51 L. Ed. 326, 27 Sup. Ct. 778, following rule; Old Dominion Steamship Co. v. Gilmore, 207 U. S. 404, 52 L. Ed. 269, 28 Sup. Ct. 133, allowing State courts of Delaware jurisdiction over tort committed on high sea; Knapp, Stout & Co. v. McCaffrey, 177 U. S: 646, 44 L. Ed. 925, 20 Sup. Ct. 828, affirming judgment of State court sustaining bill foreclosing lien upon raft fór towage; Olsen v. Birch, 133 Cal. 484, 65 Pac. 1033, sustaining suit in State court to enforce liens for services; Sanders v. Stimson Mill Co., 32 Wash. 633, 73 Pac. 690, holding seaman receiving injury entitled to medical care, nursing, attendance and cure, in addition to recovery for negligent acts of owner or master; American Steamboat Co. v. Chace, 16 Wall. 533, 534, 21 L. Ed. 372, sustaining jurisdiction of State court of action for personal injuries caused by steamboat; Norton v. Switzer, 93 U. S. 356, 23 L. Ed. 904, holding decree in bankruptcy did not divest State court of authority to proceed in action on maritime contract; United States v. Ames, 99 U. S. 43, 25 L. Ed. 300, holding question whether property seized in rem and released on bond should be recalled, cognizable only in District Court; Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 102 U. S. 119, 26 L. Ed. 95, affirming jurisdiction of State court in action in personam for damages resulting from collision; Johnson v. Chicago etc. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 398, 30 L. Ed. 450, 7 Sup. Ct. 259, action in personam in State court for damages to warehouse, etc., caused by river boat and tow; New England etc. Ins. Co. v. Dunham, 3 Cliff. 336, Fed. Cas. 10,155, holding action on contract of marine insurance cognizable in District Court or in courts of common law; Davis v. Mason, 44 Ark. 555, sustaining attachment in State court upon debt for materials furnished to build boat; Smith v. Oakes, 141 Mass. 454, 55 Am. Rep. 488, 5 N. E. 826, holding action at law proper remedy to recover seaman's wages; Billings v. Breinig, 45 Mich. 69, 7 N. W. 722, holding State court had jurisdiction of maritime tort made actionable by State statute; Conrad v. De Montcourt, 138 Mo. 322, 39 S. W. 808, holding similarly as to personal action upon general average bond; Baird v. Daly, 57 N. Y. 249, 15 Am. Rep. 493, sustaining action in State court for damages. for breach of maritime contract of transportation; Braithwaite v. Jordan, 5 N. D. 218, 31 L. R. A. 248, 65 N. W. 708, holding State court could take cognizance of suit on bond given in admiralty proceedings; Brown v. Gilmore, 92 Pa. St. 46, action in State court for damages resulting from collision on Ohio River; Waggoner v. St. John, 10 Heisk. 512, sustaining action in State court to recover for materials, work, etc., on vessel; Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 263, 35 L. Ed.

166, 11 Sup. Ct. 564 (affirming 152 Mass. 246, 9 L. R. A. 243, 25 N. E. 118), holding State court had jurisdiction of crime committed on Buzzard's Bay in absence of act of Congress.

Jurisdiction over maritime liens. Note, 62 Am. Dec. 241, 244.

Writ of sequestration may be granted by State court and levied upon vessels as security to respond to judgments which may be recovered, and they are not proceedings in rem.

Approved in Pennywit v. Eaton, 15 Wall. 384, 21 L. Ed. 114, holding writ of attachment properly issued by State court against vessel; Johnson v. Chicago etc. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 398, 30 L. Ed. 450, 7 Sup. Ct. 259, suit and attachment by State court for damage to granary by river steamer; Switzer v. Heinn, 27 La. Ann. 25, and State v. Voorheis, 39 La. Ann. 501, 4 Am. St. Rep. 276, 2 South. 39, holding that enforcement of maritime lien in a personal action is not a proceeding in rem; The Frank G. Fowler, 8 Fed. 336, determining order of payment of successive claims against vessel for tort; Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Bancroft-Whitney Co., 94 Fed. 186, 36 C. C. A. 135, holding legal nature of proceeding in rem against vessel was not changed by claim interposed by company.

Distinguished in Stewart v. Potomac Ferry Co., 5 Hughes, 385, 12 Fed. 306, holding State statute invalid giving proceeding in rem against ship for maritime cause of action; In re Surplus etc. of the Ship Edith, 11 Blatchf. 456, 466, Fed. Cas. 4283, holding that State could not create lien interfering with priorities given by law maritime. Qualified in The Ironsides, 13 Fed. Cas. 106, directing mortgages on propellers paid, without reference to liens asserted by State law.

Common-law remedies are not competent to enforce maritime lien by proceeding in rem, and State court cannot enforce maritime lien by such proceeding.

Approved in The Cerro Gordo, 62 Conn. 584, 54 Fed. 395, holding maritime lien not waived by action in State court, where judgment remained unsatisfied; Warren v. Kelley, 80 Me. 531, 15 Atl. 54, holding statute unconstitutional authorizing proceedings in rem in State court to enforce maritime liens.

Actions in State courts against vessels. Note, 62 Am. Dec. 236, 242, 244.

Maritime liens do not arise for materials and supplies furnished to vessel in her home port, and in respect to such contracts State may create such liens as their legislatures deem just and expedient, within constitutional limitations.