Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/698

684 FEDERAL REPORTBR. �courts ; tut it does not follow from this that when a conflict arises we. must apply the test of the right of succession in determining the conflict, nor that the domicile of succession must be inevitably the one that settles this suable citizenship, if I may so oall it. Simple residence is the usual test of the place to sue a man ; and while I do not depart from the established doctrine that citizenship is something more than residence, I am not prepared to hold that it is nothing less than the domicile of succession. �I do not overlook the fact urged in argument that the fourteenth amendment to the constitution bas declared that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States, wherein they reside." Const. art.' 14. '"■. �But I do not understand that thisM bas enlarged the judteial power of the United States under article 3, § 2, so as to include oon- troversies bctween persons, who would be citizens ,of the same state, ag theretofore understood, but w,ho are novf simply residents ot differ- ent states, as contradistinguished from ^exsoxxs dorniciled in different states. But ,^e have the same tests of citizenship now as before the amendment. Robertson y. Cease, 97 U. S.i646, M9; NaL Bank y. Teal, 5 Fed. Ebp. 503^ 505. I think these yiews will find support in the follo-wing authorities, and the cases cited by them : 2 Kent, (12th Ed.) 233, note c, 225,. 226, note 1, (d,) 430, note 1, 431, 49, 71, 72 Scjjoul. Dom. Bel. part 3, passim, pp. 312, 412, 452, 442, 393, 394; 314, 367, 372, 591, 598 ; Story, Conf. L. (5th Ed.) passim, §§ 39, 49 §■'46, and note 4, §§631, .543, § 480, et,seq.,:e92et seq.; Phil Dom. passim, c. 3, c. 7; Westl. Priv, Int. L. §§.35, 36, 37, 34, 316 Whart. Conf. L. (2d Ed.) passijfi, §§ 8, 10, 10a, c. 2, passim., §§ 24 29, 41-.43, 55-66, 67-77, 81, 82, ,396, 704, 720; Bump, Fed. Proc 130, 185, 217; Dill. Eem. (2d Ed.) 67,^nd notes; Somerville v. Som- erville, 5 Ves. 750, (Perkin's Ed.) and notes; Allen v, Thomasonj 11 Humph. 535; Cloud v. Hamilton, la. 104; Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 243; Tirrell v. Bacon, 3 Fed. Eep, 62; Collinson y. Teal, 4: Sawy. 241; Holmes v. Railroad Co. 5 Fed,., Ejsp. 523, 526. And see 11 Cent. L. J. 421; 12 Cent. L. J. 51. �I do not treat this subject with a more exact and critical observa- tion of the authorities, because, whilo I am inclined to think that an infant child may, at least to the estent of conferriug the right to sue and be sued in the federal courts, with the consent of its father, ac- quire in the father's life-time such a domicile in another state than that of the father's domicile as will make it a citizen of that state, I ��� �