?o9 u. 8. OpinlSn o! the 0ourt. R/c?r&o? Dr? Co., 189 U.S. 25; Ch/c?o v. M//?, 204 U.S. ?1. The ?u? was ?movable W ?e ?cuit ?urt by the def?d- ? if it w? one of wMch ?at ?urt w? ?ven juri?ction. ? S?t. ?; M? ? ?r? C? v. D?, 157 U.S. ?1; T?t? C? v. Mi?i? C?ny, 1? U.S. 2?. The o?y ?ound of o? ju?iction or of re- mov? w? tMt the ?it w? a controvc?y ?tween clti? of ?t S?s. ? tMt c? ? h? ?vcn the ?rc?t ?rt j?ction over it, ?th' cer? ?mitations not ma?ri? �here. ? S?t. 4?. ? plYtiff ?n?s that the ?t' ?u? w? ?thout j?icfion of the cau?;' ?d ?ould the? fore M?e ?d? it W the s? coup, for two ?o?. ?mt, ? u?n a proof a?ment of the ?ties'?ere w? not a con?ovemy ?tw? ? of different S?s. '?ond, ?a? the ?u? of action ? di?lo?d .by the ple? �ow? t?t the ?cuit ?u? ?d no jufi?ction over the ? ject mt?r. ?em ?om ? entirely inde?ndent of e?h other ?d mq?m ?p? consideration. ?rst, w? ? a ..con?ov?y ?tween ci?ns of different S?tes? ? the pg? were ?nged by the p?n?iff hi?lf on the face of the record, them w? a ?v?ity of citizensMp. ?e plaintiff w? a citizen of New York ?d the two defen? were citi? of M?ta. But the p?n?ff i?is? t?t by loo?ng t?ough the su?ci? ? of the ?ntrovemy W i? r? subs? it is ?n that �e ?lway comp?y's in?mst is ?v?'W that of the other dden?nt, and the ?m? ? ?t of the plaintiff, and ?t ?e?fo?, for ?e p? of ?inlng the jufi?ic?on, ?e ?f?t '? ?ould ? ? m a pla?tiff. If ?s ?o?d ? done there wo?d ? a citi?n of M?e? a p?ntiff ?d ?o?er ?n of ? a d?en?t, ?d t? &ve?ty of ei?p w?ch is ?&s?ble to ?e j?iction of the ?t ?t wo?d no ?onger e?st. ?t it ? ?med for t? p?s of t? dec,ion ?t the co?t may ?e?rd the ?- r?t ? ? ?e by ?e p?er, ?d ? them u?n ? &? w? ? ?t ? and at?tu& ? ? ?n?ov?
�
