1. A petition for the removal from a state court of a suit
brought by the plaintiffs in their representative capacity as
executors is insufficient, under the Act of March 2, 1867, 14 Stat.
558, where the defendant, who is not a citizen of the state where
the suit is brought, alleges, so far as the citizenship of the
plaintiffs is concerned, that they, "as such executors," are
citizens of that state.
2. Where the jurisdiction of the courts of the United states
depends upon the citizenship of the parties, it has reference to
their personal citizenship.
3. Insurance Company v. Pechner, supra,
p. 95 U. S. 183
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Page 95 U. S. 187
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases are substantially disposed of by the decision in
Insurance Company v. Pechner, supra,
p. 95 U. S. 183
each present the question of the sufficiency of a petition for
removal under the Act of March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 558. The suits
were in New York by the defendants in error as executors, against
the plaintiff in error, a citizen of New Jersey. The petitions for
removal set forth sufficiently the citizenship of the plaintiff in
error, but as to the defendants in error the allegation are "that
said plaintiffs, as such executors, are citizens of the state of
New York." Clearly this is not sufficient. 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. From the language here employed the court may properly infer
that, as persons, the plaintiffs in error were not citizens of New
York. For all that appears, they may have been citizens of New
Jersey, as was the defendant. Holding as we do that a state court
is not bound to surrender its jurisdiction upon a petition for
removal until at least a petition is filed, which, upon its face,
shows the right of the petitioner to the transfer, it was not error
for the court to retain these causes. We need not, therefore,
consider whether the act of 1867 limits the right of removal to the
citizenship of the parties at the time of the commencement of the
suit, or whether the state court had the right to call upon the
defendants in error to show cause against the application.