66 F. 81 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania | 1895
This case was originally brought in a court of Pennsylvania by a citizen of that state. The defendant, a citizen of Delaware, caused its removal to this court. The plaintiff insists that it should be remanded, and upon two grounds, with reference to which his motion to that end will be decided.
1. It is asserted that the defendant, who is sued as executor, “having come into this state, and having taken out ancillary letters, is, for the purpose of this suit, a citizen of Pennsylvania, and there is no diverse citizenship as required by the act.” This proposition is in conflict with the law as settled by the highest authority. “Where the jurisdiction of the ’courts of the United States depends upon the citizenship of the'parties, it has reference to the parties as persons. A petition for removal must, therefore, state the personal citizenship of the parties, and not their official citizenship, if there can be such a thing.” Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S. 187.
2. It is further contended that, notwithstanding the diverse citizenship of the parties, this suit is one of which a circuit court of the United States has not jurisdiction. It is an action, in common-law form, for the recovery of a legacy. It was brought in conformity with a statute of the state of Pennsylvania which authorizes such actions. Act Feb. 24, 1834 (P. L. p. 83, § 50); Purd. Dig. p. 449, pi. 215. Without this statute, a' proceeding in accordance with chancery methods would have'been the only available one in the state court. It, however, only provided a new form of remedy; the tribunal remained the same, and its jurisdiction was not. extended or altered. In Pennsylvania the same courts administer both law and equity, and whether any particular case is of the one class or the other is not a question of jurisdiction, but of form merely. Adams v. Beach, 1 Phila. 101. Accordingly, those courts have held that cases under this particular statute are, substantially, suits in equity. Seibert v. Butz, 9 Watts, 494; Dunlop v. Bard, 2 Pen. & W. 309. The subject-matter of the present litigation is within this court’s jurisdiction in equity, but not at law; and inasmuch as here the distinction between equity and law cannot (as in the Pennsylvania courts) be disregarded, nor the principle's and remedies peculiar to either System be applied under the other, it is contended that this cause has been transferred to a court which, as a court of equity, cannot entertain it, because it is an action at law, and which, as a court of law. cannot take cognizance of it, for want of jurisdiction. This .contention involves, the acceptance of a consequence, which, as I ventured to suggest upon the argument,- seems to be inadmissible. That a state, by simply prescribing a peculiar form of procedure for its own courts, may, in
