l? r? MOORE. 209 U. 8, Oplm'oa of ?h? Court wrong district. Grac/z v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699; Taylor v. Longworth, 14 Pet. 172, 174; St. Louis & San Francisco Rail- way v. McBr/de, t41 U. 8. 127; Twras & Pa,/fie Ra//way v. U.S. 120." U.S. 201, 208, Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, after stating that the action could not have been originally brought in the Circuit Court of the United States because both parties were, in the eyes of the law, citizens of the same State, added: "It is true that by the first section, where the jurisdiction is founded on diversity of citizenship, suit is to he brought 'only in the district of residence of the plaintiff or the defend- ant,' and this restriction is a personal privilege of the defend- ant and may he waived by him. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. v. McB.?'id?, 141 U.S. 127. Section 2, however, refers to the first part of section 1, by which jurisdiction is conferred, and not to the clause relating to the district in which suit may he brought. McCormick Macklne Co. v. Walthers, 134 U.S. 41." In Interior Construction & Improvement Company v. ?, 160 U.S. 217, 219, Mr. Justice Gray thus stated the l?w: "Diversity of eitisenahip is a condition of jurisdiction, and, When that does not appear upon the record, the court, of its own motion, will order the action to be dismissed. But the provision as to the particular district in which the action shall be brought does not touch the general jurisdiction of the court over such a cause between such parties; but &fleets only the proceedings taken to bring the defendant within such juris- diction, and is a matter of personal privilege, which the fendant may insist upon, or nmy waive, at his election; and the defendant's right to object that an action, within the general jurisdiction of the court, is brought in the wrong dis- trict, is waived by entering a general appearance, without taking the objection." In Ez parle Wisr?r, supra, Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, referring
�
