510 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. ' Tn?.Cn? Jom?c? ?limmting. 209 U. ? Z S? ?ntxlni- mo? t? one ?ct, ?tio? not shoed '? brou?t ? the ?t?ct ? w?ch t? defen?t side,' or 'if ?e? ? two or mp? defen? ?id?g S?t. 272. ?e w?le p? ?d eff?t of that ?t w? not ? e?, but ? r? ?d d?t?bu? junction. It p? ?y ? a S? coning two or more ?tfic?; ?d �? s? ?t citi?m of ?ch a S? ? ? bmu?t in tMt ?ct their ? w?ch ?y or either of them ?d?. It &d not subject dcfen? ? my new ?ability ? ? su? out of the S? of w?ch they we? citi?m, but simply ?fi? ? w?ch ?t6ct of tMt' S? they mi?t ? su?. "? pm?iom of the ? of 17? ?d 1? we? su? s?ti?y m? ? ?om 739 ?d 7? of ?e ?d S?tu?. "?e ?t of ?ch 3, 1875, c. 137? ? 1, ?r ?v?g the c?t ? ju?&ction of s? 'in w?ch ?he? sh?l ? a ?n- tmveny ?tw?n citi? of diffe?nt Sm?,' ?d cnl?ong their j?iction ? other ?, su?ti?y ? the ?n?g pmv?on of the ?t of 1789 by prodding t?t no ci? suit shoed ? brought '?i?t any ?n,' 'in ?y other ?tfict t? tMt wheel he is ? inlmbit?t or in w?ch he s? ? fo?d' at ?le time of mr?, with ce? exce? Smt. 470. "?e ?t of 1?7, ?th in i? o?al form ?d m co? ? 1?, m?c? the rule that no civ? suit sl? ? bmuglit ?in?t ?y ?on in ?y other d?t6ct tim that wheel he ? ? in,bight, but omi? the c?u? a?o?g a defendant ? ? su? in the d?t?ct where he is found, ?d c?u?: 'But where the jurisdiction is found? o?y on the f?t tMt the action is ?twcen citizem of diffe?nt S?s, suit sh? ? brou?t only in the ?t?ct of the ?idence of eider the plaintiff or the defendant.' 24 S?t. 552; ? S?t. 4?. ? hm ?en ad]udged by ?his court, the l?t cla? ? by ?y of pro? ? the next preceding c?, which forbi&
�
