Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/665

WOOLRIDGE V. m'kENNA. 651 �4. Samb Subject— VoijUntaet Appbarancb of Guakdian— Ratification. �Where the f ather and next f riend of an infant defendant, who had attempted, before service of process, to remove the infant' s suit to the federal court upon a petition and bond undertaking to enter his and the infant's appearance in that court, subsequently to the proceedings procured an appointment as guard- ian from the proper state court, and thereupon, as such guardian, entered his and the infant's appearance in the federal court : Jidd, that such appear- ance was inefflectual to give the court jurisdiction of the person of the infant, or to cure by ratification the defective petition and bond for removal, although in the state court the service of process on the guardian would bind the infant, and the guardian might voluntarily appear there for hira. �5. Samb StnsJECx — Case Aeising Undeb thb Oonstitution and Laws of the �Unitbd States — Jubisdiction ob Subject-Matteb — Bankruptot — Bill TO Set Asidb Fraudulent Convbyanceb. �A hill by an assignee in bankruptoy to set aside a fraudulent conveyance by the bankrupt, Is a case arising under the constitution and laws of the Dnited States, of which the federal courts, have jurisdiction, irrespective of the citizen- ship of the parties ; but where there is an infant defendant seeking a removal, the petition and bond should not he flled until after service of process on the infant, or there be an authorized appearance for him in the state court. �■6. Same Sdbjbct — PETTrioN FOR Removal— JuRisDicTioNAL Avebments — Amend- �MEKTS— PhACTICB. �While the court will look to the transcript of the record of the state court in aid of the allegations of the petition for removal, the petition itself must con- tain the pecessary jurisdictional ay;ermeuts ; and if it alleges that the parties are citizens of different states as the basis of reihoval, the pctitioner cannot prove by the transcript or otherwise, in the support of the jurisdiction, that it is a case for removal on account of ■ subjecl-matter. The allegata and probata must correspond as in other pleadingg. But the petition may be amendcd, either by curing defective averments, or by substituting additional or new alle- gations; and such amendments may be made in the federal court without re- manding to the state court for that purpose. 7. Jurisdiction— CiTizENBHip dp an Infant — Domicilb-— Change of Infant's— Parental Control— Emancipation— CoNSTiTutioN-FotTRTEENTH Amend- mbnt. �It seems that a minor child may, at least for thp purposes of jurisdiction in the federal courts, acquire a separate domicile' and citizenship from that of the f ather during his life-time ; but that result can dnly be accomplished by the emancipation of the child, and a complete surrender of the parental control, either to the child itself or some one standing in loeo pqrentis as to the choice of domicile. Any mere consent of the f ather that the child may reside in an- other state, however permanently, cannot shif t the domicile ; but there must bc in the father no longer any right to regulate the 8U|bject, and the right of choice must have been tranaferred to the child or some one else by the father's con- sent, or by operation of law. 3eld, tkerefore, where the father, a citizen of Tennessee, having lost, by death, the nibther and all but one of his children, a girl flve or six years of age, removed her to Kentucky and placed her to reside perma- nently with her aunt, th^t there had been no change of domicile to constitute the child a citizen of Kentucky, but that she was stil) a citizen of Tennessee, and the court had no jurisdiction where the plaintift' is also a citizen of Ten- nessee. Held, also, that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution has not changed the test of citizenship in its relation to the jurisdiction of the federal courts overthe controversies of citizens of different statcs. ��� �