?r of ?e p?i? who ?t s? s? ? th? co?s ? d? ? ?e ?fion, w?e the fo? ? [?e ?t cla? ? the ?fion] re? ?' the d?tfict ? w?ch a ?t ?y ? o?y brecht." In ?t. ? &c. ?y C?ny v. MOBS, 1? U.S. ?, 131, it w? ?d: "?e ?t it ? ?e, ? def?d?t aH?, t?t ? ? �not a ?'? w?ch j?iction ? found? o?y on ?e f?t t?t the ?ntrove?y ? ?tw?n ?ti? of diffe?t S?, but ?t it ?m? wit? t? ? of t?t other c?, w? pm?d? ?t 'no ci?l ?t ? ? bm?t ?fo? either of ?d ?, ?i?t any ?n, by ?y ofi? pm? or p?g, ? ?y other d?tfict t? ?t wheel he ? ? ?bi?t,' ?ill ?c ?t ? ? u?n ?t o?y ? the one ?tfict ? a ?o?1 pfi?!e? w? he ?y w?ve and he d? w?ve it by ple?g ? the mefi?. "Wigout multipl?ng ?utho?ti? on th? quaion, it ? o? vious that the ?y who in the fi?t' ? ap?am ?d plus ? the mefi? waiv? ?y fi?t ? ch?e? the?r the ju?iction of the ?u? on the ?o?d t?t the s?t ? ?n brou?t in the ?ng d?tfict. C? N?. ? v. M?an, 132 U.S. 141; F? C? C?ny v. F?, 137 U.S. 98." In S?w v. ? M?ni? C?ny, 1? U.S. ?, ?3, a ? ?g afar the act of 1?8, and in which.the defendant promptly m? the quition of jur?iction, Mr. J?ti? Gray ?fe? ? t? ?t?r ? thee wo?s: "?e Qu?cy M?ing ?mpany, a co,ration of Mic?, hav?g app? s?c?11y for the pu? of ?ng the ob? jectioa t?t it could not ? su? ? the Southern D?tfict of New York, by a ?fi?n of ?other S?, t? ? ? no ques- tion of w?ver, ?ch ? ? ?n ?co?ized whe? a defendant h? ap? ?nemlly ? a suit ?tween citi?ns of d?fferent
�
