You are on page 1of 12

YesthereisacitizenofanotherState

2011DanGoodman SincetheadoptionoftheFourteenthAmendment,thereisacitizenoftheUnited States,undertheFourteenthAmendment,andthereisacitizenofanotherState, underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesof America: AcitizenofoneStategoingtoortransactingbusinessinanotherisentitledin thelatterStatetotheprivilegesandimmunitiesenjoyedbyitscitizens.TheState cannotlegislateagainsthimorotherwisedisfavorhim.Theintentwasthatthe citizenofoneStateshouldnotbeanalieninanother.InanyStatehehasthe protectionofthegovernmentofthatState,theenjoymentoflifeandlibertywiththe righttoacquireandpossessproperty,therighttopursueandobtainhappiness,to instituteactionsincourt,andgenerallytopossesswhatthecitizenoftheState possess.NumerouscaseshavearisenunderthisclausewheretheStateshave attemptedtofavortheirowncitizenstotheprejudiceofthecitizensofotherStates. Suchlawsarevoidforconflictwiththisclause.(ArticleIV,Section2,Clause1) AftertheNegrowasemancipatedtherewasadoptedtheFourteenth Amendment(1868),oneoftheprovisionsofwhichisthatnoStateshall... abridgetheprivilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates.Thus,putting thetwoclausestogether,theStateisforbiddentoabridgetheprivilegesand immunitiesof(1)thecitizenofanotherState,andof(2)thecitizenoftheUnited States.[Footnote1]Fortherearetwocitizenshipsandtwoloyalties.The ConstitutionoftheUnitedStates:ItsSourcesAndItsApplication;ThomasJames Norton;1922(Boston:Little,BrownandCompany);Page158.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ao9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false

AcitizenofanotherStateisalsocalledacitizenofasisterState: TwoclausesoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionareinvoked:2ofart.4,which declaresthatThecitizensofeachStateshallbeentitledtoallprivilegesand immunitiesofcitizensintheseveralStates,andpartof1ofthe14thAmendment: NoStateshallmakeorenforceanylawwhichshallabridgetheprivilegesor immunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates;norshallanyStatedepriveanypersonof life,libertyorproperty,withoutdueprocessoflaw,nordenytoanypersonwithin itsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthelaws. 1

AcomparisonofthestatuteunderreviewwiththeothergamelawsoftheState showsthat,withregardtohuntinggame,greaterrestrictionsareplaceduponnon residentsthanuponresidents,andthatthepenaltiesincurredbytheformerfor violatingtherestrictionsimposedaresevererthanthoseincurredbythelatter. Thediscriminationsofthestatutearenotbaseduponthefactofcitizenship,nor doesitappearbytherecordbeforeusthattheprosecutorwasacitizeneitherofa sisterStateoroftheUnitedStates.Consequently,2ofarticle4andsomuchof the14thAmendmentassecurestheprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenofthe Nationarenotapplicabletothecaseinhand.Allenv.Wyckoff:2Cent213(1886).


http://books.google.com/books?id=sRpLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA213#v=onepage&q&f=false

AcitizenofanotherStateisacitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnited States: InthecaseofGassiesv.Ballo[n],6PetersR.761,itwasheldbyChiefJ.Marshall thatacitizenoftheUnitedStatesresidinginanyStateoftheUnionisacitizenof thatState.ThereareothercasesoftheSupremecourttothesameeffect.Andin Towlescase,5Leigh743,theGeneralcourtofthisStatedecidedthata naturalizedcitizenoftheUnitedStatesoranativecitizenofanyotherStateof theuniondomiciledinVirginia,beingentitledtoalltheprivilegesofacitizenof thisState,isacitizenofVirginia...AcitizenofanotherStateoftheUnion thusbecomesacitizenofthisStatebyresidingintheState,andacitizenof VirginiamayceasetobesuchbybecomingthecitizenofanotherStateor country,orbyexpatriation.Bakerv.Wise,Governor:57Vir.(16Gratt)139,at212 thru213(1861).
http://books.google.com/books?id=lTkTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA212#v=onepage&q&f=false

...Noquestionofinterstatecommerceisinvolvedinsuchcasewhich militatesagainsttheexercisebythestateofitspoweroftaxation.Neither,inthat event,isacitizenofanotherstatedeprivedofanyoftheimmunitiesor privilegesofacitizenofthisstate[Footnote3],noristhestateattemptingto makeorenforcealawwhichabridgestherightsofacitizenoftheUnitedStates. ...AstatuteofWashingtontaxinglivestockbroughtintothatstatetograzewas upheldinallrespects,butthequestionwasapparentlynotpresented,norwasit discussedintheopinionofthecourtwhetheranyprovisionofthefederal constitutionwasinfringedupon.Wrightv.Stinson(Wash.)47Pac.761.Kelleyv. Rhoads:51PacRep573,at596(1898).
http://books.google.com/books?id=6wsLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA596#v=onepage&q&f=false

WecometothecontentionthatthecitizenshipofEdwardswasnotaverredin thecomplaintorshownbytherecord,andhencejurisdictiondidnotappear. Inansweringthequestion,whethertheCircuitCourthadjurisdictionofthe controversy,wemustputourselvesintheplaceoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,and decidethequestionwithreferencetothetranscriptofrecordinthatcourt. HadthetranscriptshownnothingmoreastothestatusofEdwardsthanthe avermentofthecomplaintthathewasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,assuch anavermentwouldnotnecessarilyhaveimportedthatEdwardswasacitizenof Delaware,anegativeanswerwouldhavebeenimpelledbypriordecisions.Mexican CentralRy.Co.v.Duthie,189U.S.76;Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,155U.S.393; Dennyv.Pironi,141U.S.121;Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.646.Thewholerecord, however,maybelookedto,forthepurposeofcuringadefectiveavermentof citizenship,wherejurisdictioninaFederalcourtisassertedtodependupon diversityofcitizenship,andiftherequisitecitizenship,isanywhereexpressly averredintherecord,orfactsarethereinstatedwhichinlegalintendment constitutesuchallegation,thatissufficient.Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,supra andcasescited. Asthisisanactionatlaw,weareboundtoassumethatthetestimonyofthe plaintiffcontainedinthecertificateoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,andrecitedto havebeengivenonthetrial,waspreservedinabillofexceptions,whichformed partofthetranscriptofrecordfiledintheCircuitCourtofAppeals.Beingapartof therecord,andpropertoberesortedtoinsettlingaquestionofthecharacterof thatnowunderconsideration,Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.648,wecometoascertain whatisestablishedbytheuncontradictedevidencereferredto. Inthefirstplace,itshowsthatEdwards,priortohisemploymentontheNew YorkSunandtheNewHavenPalladium,waslegallydomiciledintheStateof Delaware.Next,itdemonstratesthathehadnointentiontoabandonsuchdomicil, forhetestifiedunderoathasfollows:OneofthereasonsIlefttheNewHaven Palladiumwas,itwastoofarawayfromhome.IlivedinDelaware,andIhadtogo backandforth.MyfamilyareoverinDelaware.Now,itiselementarythat,toeffect achangeofoneslegaldomicil,twothingsareindispensable:First,residenceina newdomicil,and,second,theintentiontoremainthere.Thechangecannotbe made,exceptfactoetanimo.Botharealikenecessary.Eitherwithouttheotheris insufficient.Mereabsencefromafixedhome,howeverlongcontinued,cannotwork thechange.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall.350. AsDelawaremust,then,beheldtohavebeenthelegaldomicilofEdwardsatthe timehecommencedthisaction,haditappearedthathewasacitizenofthe UnitedStates,itwouldhaveresulted,byoperationoftheFourteenth Amendment,thatEdwardswasalsoacitizenoftheStateofDelaware.Anderson 3

v.Watt,138U.S.694.Bethisasitmay,however,Delawarebeingthelegaldomicil ofEdwards,itwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenacitizenofanotherState, District,orTerritory,andhemustthenhavebeeneitheracitizenofDelawareora citizenorsubjectofaforeignState.Ineitherofthesecontingencies,theCircuit Courtwouldhavehadjurisdictionoverthecontroversy.But,inthelightofthe testimony,wearesatisfiedthattheavermentinthecomplaint,thatEdwardswasa residentoftheStateofDelaware,wasintendedtomean,and,reasonably construed,mustbeinterpretedasaverring,thattheplaintiffwasacitizenofthe StateofDelaware.Jonesv.Andrews,10Wall.327,331;ExpressCompanyv.Kountze, 8Wall.342.SunPrinting&PublishingAssociationv.Edwards:194U.S.377,at381 thru383(1904).
http://books.google.com/books?id=tekGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q&f=false

AstowhoarecitizensoftheState.TheFourteenthAmendmenttothe ConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesprovidesthat AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStatesandsubjecttothe jurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandtheStatewherein theyreside. ThereforewhenapersonwhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesbybirthor naturalization,comestothisStateandresideshereheisacitizenofthisState.... WhereacitizenofanotherStatecomestothisStateandresidesinsometown foratemporarypurpose,thoughsuchstaybeprotracted,hedoesnotthereby becomeacitizenofthisState.Easterlyv.Goodwin,35Conn.,286. Withsuchaperson,hisresidenceheremustbeinthesenseofmakingitahome whichhehasnopresentintentionofabandoning.Ithinkthatitmustbea domiciliaryresidence.TheResidenceofaMaleCitizen,OpinionsoftheAttorney General;StateofConnecticut;Hartford,February1,1909;ReportoftheTax CommissionerforBiennialPeriod1909and1910,pages52thru53.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Eb9JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false

Iassumethatmostmenwhohavegivenanyconsiderationtothissubject,when theyhavereadthisparticulartopicontheprogram,hadareactionofimpatience, becauseatfirstsightIshouldassumealsothatitisamatterthathasnotagitatedthe averagememberoftheBarnortheaveragedelegatetothisConference.Icansay thatitneverawakenedmyanimosityuntilIwasforcedintothepositionofstudying systematicallyandcarefullythepresentstateofthelawfortheremovalofcases fromthestatecourtstothefederalcourtsasadministratedinthefederalcourtsin thiscountry.Thosestatutesoughttobesimple.Therightofremovaloughttobe welldefined.Ifthereisanythingthatoughtnottobethesubjectofexpert 4

knowledge,orthatoughtnottorequirediscussioningreatdetailwheneverthe questionarises,therightofremovaloughttobethatquestion.Butasmatteroffact therightofremoval,asadministeredinthevariouscourtsoftheUnitedStates today,isascomplexandasuncertainandasdifficultasmanyofthemostintricate patentclaims..... Thatleadsmetotheconstitutionalaspect.Wehavenotonlyaconditionof chaosintheadministrationofthelaw,butinthosestateswhichrefusetoacceptthe properfundamentalprincipleasIconceiveit,acitizenoftheUnitedStatesmaybe suedbyacitizenofanotherstateinastateinwhichneitherofthemresides.The AmericanBarAssociationJournal;VolumeVI;1920(Baltimore:TheLordBaltimore Press);ConferenceofBarAssociationDelegates;CharlesA.Boston,Page45,49.
http://books.google.com/books?id=mc0nAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q&f=false

2.AsappliedtoacitizenofanotherState,ortoacitizenoftheUnitedStates residinginanotherState,astatelawforbiddingsaleofconvictmadegoodsdoesnot violatetheprivilegesandimmunitiesclause[s]ofArt.IV,2andthe[privilegesor immunitiesclauseofthe]FourteenthAmendmentoftheFederalConstitution,ifit appliesalsoandequallytothecitizensoftheStatethatenactedit.P.437.Syllabus, Whitfieldv.StateofOhio:297U.S.431(1936). 1.Thecourtbelowproceededupontheassumptionthatpetitionerwasa citizenoftheUnitedStates;andhisstatusinthatregardisnotquestioned.The effectoftheprivileges[and]orimmunitiesclauseoftheFourteenthAmendment,as appliedtothefactsofthepresentcase,istodenythepowerofOhiotoimpose restraintsuponcitizensoftheUnitedStatesresidentinAlabamainrespectofthe dispositionofgoodswithinOhio,iflikerestraintsarenotimposeduponcitizens residentinOhio.TheeffectofthesimilarclausefoundintheFourthArticleofthe Constitution,asappliedtothesefacts,wouldbethesame,sincethatclauseis directedagainstdiscriminationbyastateinfavorofitsowncitizensandagainstthe citizensofotherstates.SlaughterHouseCases,16Wall.36,1Woods21,28; Bradwellv.State,16Wall.130,138.Opinion,Whitfieldv.StateofOhio:297U.S. 431,at437(1936).
http://supreme.justia.com/us/297/431/(Syllabus) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13866319457277062642(Opinion)

Youstateinyourletterthatatthepresenttime,taxassessorsofthevarious countiesinthisstateareconfrontedwiththequestionofwhethertheyshouldgrant homesteadtaxexemptionclaimsofcitizensofCubawhoareresidinginFlorida withoutpermanentvisas,notthroughanyfaultoftheirownbutbyreasonofthe poorpoliticalconditionsexistinginCuba.Unders.7,Art.X,StateConst.,every personwhohasthelegaltitleorbeneficialtitleinequitytorealpropertyinthis stateandwhoresidesthereonandingoodfaithmakesthesamehisorher 5

permanenthome...shallbeentitledtoanexemptiontaxation....Saids.7,Art. X,wasamendedin1938.Priortotheamendmentthatsectionprovidedthatthere shallbeexemptedfromalltaxation...toeveryheadofafamilywhoisacitizen andresidesinthestateofFloridahishomesteadasdefinedbysaidsection.It seemsevidentbycomparisonoftheaboveconstitutionalprovisionsthatamaterial changewasmadeintheconstitutionalprovisionbythe1938amendment.Theprior constitutionalprovisionrequiredresidenceandcitizenship;thepresentprovision requiresresidenceandthemakingofthepropertyone'spermanenthome.A propertyownermaybeentitledtohomesteadtaxexemptionnotwithstandinghe maybeacitizenofanotherstateorcountry,solongasheresidespermanentlyin thisstate(Smithv.Voight,158Fla.366,28So.2d426).AttorneyGeneralofFlorida, AdvisoryLegalOpinion,AGO61148,Dated:September19,1961.
https://taxlaw.state.fl.us/view.aspx?id=225893&file=pta_ago&format=3&banner=Property %20Tax%20Oversight%20%20Attorney%20General%20Opinions(copyandpaste)

InAGO3910,Jan.19,1939,BiennialReportoftheAttorneyGeneral,1939 1940p.438,itwasheldthatminors,aliens,andanyotherpersonwhoheldthelegal orbeneficialtitleinequitytorealpropertyinthisstatewereentitledtohomestead exemptionandthatcitizenshipwasnotthetest.InSmithv.Voight,28So.2d426 (Fla.1946)itwasheldthatnotevenUnitedStatescitizenshipwasrequiredin ordertoobtainhomesteadexemption.AttorneyGeneralofFlorida,AdvisoryLegal Opinion,AGO70028,Dated:April14,1970.


https://taxlaw.state.fl.us/view.aspx?id=376610&file=pta_ago&format=3&banner=Property %20Tax%20Oversight%20%20Attorney%20General%20Opinions(copyandpaste)

__________________ Footnotes: 1....Theonlyquestiontobeconsidered,sofarasthelawisconcerned,is whetheritsnecessaryresultisthetaxationofsuchproperty.Thepropositionis maintained,andisundoubtedlycorrect,that,beforepropertycanbetaxed,itmust havebecomeidentifiedandincorporatedwiththegeneralmassofpropertyinthe state.Livestockinthisstateis,inthegreaterpart,maintainedbyfeedingorgrazing uponthenaturalgrassesofthesoil.Inthecaseofsomekindsoflivestock,theyare largelyallowedtoroamatwill,butoverterritorymoreorlessconfinedinextent. Withsheepthecustomistokeeptheminconvenientflocksorherds,intrustedto herders,andtodirectthemfromplacetoplace,generallyastoaparticularherd,in 6

somecertainlocality,butcoveringinmostcasesaratherlargeandindeterminate territory.Theyarethusmaintaineduntilinproperconditionfordisposition, shipment,orotherpurposesoftheowner.Theonlywayinwhichsuchproperty becomesidentifiedandincorporatedwiththeotherpropertyofthestateisbybeing turnedatlargeorherded,tobemaintainedbygrazing.Whetherthepurposeisthat theyshallremaininthestatepermanentlyornot,isnotadeterminingfactor.Sucha purposedoesnotexistinthecaseofthegreaterproportionofallthelivestockin thestate.Theobjectofacattlegroweristoshipoutthestatehiscattle,assoonas theyarriveattheproperage,size,orcondition.Tosomeextentthatisalsothe purposewhichthesheepownerhasinview.Whenlivestockarebroughtintothis statetograzetheyareheretobemaintained.Whilehereforthatpurpose,theyare asfullyidentifiedandincorporatedwiththeotherpropertyofthestateasitis possibleformostofourlivestocktobecome.Thelengthoftimethatsuchproperty remainscutsnofigure,ifthepurposeaforesaidispresent.Noquestionofinterstate commerceisinvolvedinsuchcasewhichmilitatesagainsttheexercisebythestate ofitspoweroftaxation.Neither,inthatevent,isacitizenofanotherstate deprivedofanyoftheimmunitiesorprivilegesofacitizenofthisstate,noris thestateattemptingtomakeorenforcealawwhichabridgestherightsofa citizenoftheUnitedStates....AstatuteofWashingtontaxinglivestockbrought intothatstatetograzewasupheldinallrespects,butthequestionwasapparently notpresented,norwasitdiscussedintheopinionofthecourtwhetherany provisionofthefederalconstitutionwasinfringedupon.Wrightv.Stinson(Wash.) 47Pac.761.Kelleyv.Rhoads:51PacRep573,at596(1898).
http://books.google.com/books?id=6wsLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA596#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thenextreasongivenbythecircuitjudgeisthatifjurisdictionisconferredby consentitdoesnotbecomeobligatoryuponthecourttoentertainjurisdiction.The correctnessofthispositionmustdependupontherightoftheplaintifftoseek redressinthecourtsoftheState.Ifapartyhasarighttoplanthissuitinacircuit courtofthisState,thecircuitjudgehasnodiscretiontoexerciseinthematter.He cannotsaytoonesuitor,Iwillretainyoursuit,andtoanother,Iwilldismissit.It isamongthefundamentalrightsofapeopleunderonegovernmentthatthey maybesecuredintheacquirement,possessionandenjoymentofproperty,and forthispurposecourtsareinstitutedaspartoftheOrganicLaw,inwhichevery personshallhavehisremedybydueprocessoflaw.Itissecuredasaprivilege towhicheverycitizenoftheUnitedStatesisentitled.Theredressofwrongsand themeansofenforcingcontractsareofthegreatestconsequencetothecitizensof everyState. Article4,2,oftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesdeclaresthatthe citizensofeachStateshallbeentitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunitiesof citizensintheseveralStates.IncommentinguponthisclauseoftheConstitution, theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,inConnerv.Elliott,59U.S.(18How.)593 7

{15L.ed.498},said:Wedonotdeemitneedfultoattempttodefinethemeaningof thewordprivilegesinthisclauseoftheConstitution.Itissaferandmorein accordancewiththedutyofajudicialtribunaltoleaveitsmeaningtobe determined,ineachcase,uponaviewoftheparticularrightsassertedanddenied therein....Itissufficientforthiscasetosaythat,accordingtotheexpresswords andclearmeaningofthisclause,noprivilegesaresecuredbyit,exceptthosewhich belongtocitizenship.TherighttobringsuitintheseveralcourtsofthisState havingjurisdictionisaprivilegeofeverycitizenofthisState.Especiallyisthistrue withreferencetotheenforcementofcontracts.AcitizenofanotherStatemay comeintothis[State],andacquireandenjoyproperty.Hemayinheritand transmitproperty.Hemayenterintocontracts,tothesameextentthatacitizen ofthisStatecandoso,andinthishisrightsareguaranteedbytheabove provisionoftheConstitution;andIthinkthathisrighttobringsuitinthisState, inanycasewhereacitizenoftheStatemay,isalsoguaranteedandprotectedby thisprovisionoftheConstitution.CofrodevGartner:7L.R.A.511,at514 (1890).
http://books.google.com/books?id=_JQKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA514#v=onepage&q&f=false

2.AsappliedtoacitizenofanotherState,ortoacitizenoftheUnitedStates residinginanotherState,astatelawforbiddingsaleofconvictmadegoodsdoesnot violatetheprivilegesandimmunitiesclause[s]ofArt.IV,2andthe[privilegesor immunitiesclauseofthe]FourteenthAmendmentoftheFederalConstitution,ifit appliesalsoandequallytothecitizensoftheStatethatenactedit.P.437.Syllabus, Whitfieldv.StateofOhio:297U.S.431(1936). 1.Thecourtbelowproceededupontheassumptionthatpetitionerwasa citizenoftheUnitedStates;andhisstatusinthatregardisnotquestioned.The effectoftheprivileges[and]orimmunitiesclauseoftheFourteenthAmendment,as appliedtothefactsofthepresentcase,istodenythepowerofOhiotoimpose restraintsuponcitizensoftheUnitedStatesresidentinAlabamainrespectofthe dispositionofgoodswithinOhio,iflikerestraintsarenotimposeduponcitizens residentinOhio.TheeffectofthesimilarclausefoundintheFourthArticleofthe Constitution,asappliedtothesefacts,wouldbethesame,sincethatclauseis directedagainstdiscriminationbyastateinfavorofitsowncitizensandagainstthe citizensofotherstates.SlaughterHouseCases,16Wall.36,1Woods21,28; Bradwellv.State,16Wall.130,138.Opinion,Whitfieldv.StateofOhio:297U.S. 431,at437(1936).
http://supreme.justia.com/us/297/431/(Syllabus) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13866319457277062642(Opinion)

[SeeFootnote2] 8

2.Thesestatutes(Section1736andSection1737,R.S.1909)wereunder considerationinthecaseofNewlinv.RailroadCo.,222Mo.375,121S.W.125,and thecourtthereheldthatthesestatuteswerefoundeduponcomity,andopenedthe doorsofourcourtstocausesofactionaccruingunderthelawsofsisterstates. Meaning,ofcourse,thatthedoorswerenotopenedatthediscretionofthecourt,as wasformerlythecase,butmandatory,inharmonyandinkeepingwithsection2of article4andsection1ofthefourteenthamendmentoftheConstitutionofthe UnitedStates,whichreadsasfollows: Section2,art.4.Privilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheseveral states.Thecitizensofeachstateshallbeentitledtoalltheprivilegesand immunitiesofcitizensoftheseveralstates. Section1ofthe14thAmendment.CitizenshipRightsofcitizens Dueprocessoflawandequalprotectionofthelaws.Allpersonsbornor naturalizedintheUnitedStatesandsubjecttothejurisdictionthereofare citizensoftheUnitedStatesandofthestatewhereintheyreside.Nostate shallmakeorenforceanylawwhichshallabridgetheprivilegesor immunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates,norshallanystatedepriveany personoflife,liberty,orpropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw,nordenyto anypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthelaws. Byreadingthesetwoconstitutionalprovisionstogether,itwillbeseenthat thelatterismuchbroader,inmanyparticulars,thantheformer;andthisisalsotrue regardingcitizenship.BytheformernothingwassaidaboutcitizensoftheUnited States,whilethelatterinexpresstermsmakesallpersonsbornintheUnitedStates ornaturalized,inpursuancetoitsauthority,citizensnotonlyofthestateinwhich theyreside,butalsocitizensoftheUnitedStates.Thelastsectionalsoprovidesthat nostateshallmakeorenforceanylawwhichshallabridgetheprivilegesor immunitiesofthecitizensoftheUnitedStates,whichofcourseincludesallofthe citizensofallofthestates,andtheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStateshas repeatedlyheldthatthelatterclauseincludescorporations,wheneverengagedin interstatecommerce,orwheneverlegallyauthorizedtodobusinessinanysuch stateorstates. Thatbeingtrue,theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,inspeakingoftherights ofacitizenofMassachusettstosueinthecourtsofNewYork,inthecaseofColev. Cunningham,133U.S.,loc.cit.113,114,10Sup.Ct.271,33L.Ed.538,said:The intentionofsection2ofarticle4wastoconferonthecitizensoftheseveralstatesa generalcitizenship,andtocommunicatealltheprivilegesandimmunitieswhichthe citizensofthesamestatewouldbeentitledtounderthelikecircumstances,andthis includestherighttoinstituteactions.ThefactofthecitizenshipofButlerand HaydendidnotaffecttheirprivilegetosueinNewYorkandhavethefulluseand benefitofthecourtsofthatstateintheassertionoftheirlegalrights.Thatcourt hasalsorepeatedlyheld,undertheconstitutionalprovisionsbeforementioned,that 9

anycitizenoftheUnitedStatesorofanystatethereofmaysueinthecourtsof anyotherstate,whereveracitizenofsuchstatemaydosounderthelawsthereof. Thatcourt,indiscussingthisquestioninthecaseofInternationalTextBook Company,207U.S.9(1),loc.cit.111,30Sup.Ct.481,487(24L.Ed.678,24L.R.A. [N.S.]493),usedthislanguage:Thiscourt,held,inChambersv.Baltimore&Ohio RailroadCo.,207U.S.142,148[28Sup.Ct.,34,35(52L.Ed.143)],thatastatemay, subjecttotherestrictionsofthefederalConstitution,determinethelimitsofthe jurisdictionofitscourts,andthecharacterofthecontroversieswhichshallbeheard inthem.Butitalsosaidinthesamecase:Therighttosueanddefendinthecourts isthealternativeofforce.Inanorganizedsocietyitistherightconservativeofall otherrights,andliesatthefoundationoforderlygovernment.Itisoneofthe highestandmostessentialprivilegesofcitizenship,andmustbeallowedbyeach statetothecitizensofallotherstatestothepreciseextentthatitisallowedtoits owncitizens.Equalityoftreatmentinthisrespectisnotlefttodependuponcomity betweenthestates,butisgrantedandprotectedbythefederalConstitution. ThesamequestioncamebeforethiscourtinthecaseofInternationalTextBook Co.v.Gillespie,229Mo.397,129S.W.922.Therewasquotedwithapprovalthe foregoinglanguageoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,andinpursuance theretoheld:(c)Thatwhereaforeigncorporationhasavalidcauseagainstacitizen ofthisstate,itmaysuesaidcitizenthereoninthecourtsofthisstate,provideda citizenofthisstatemightdothesame,notwithstandingtheprovisionsofsaid section1025tothecontrary.Chambersv.Railroad,207U.S.142,148[28Sup.Ct. 34,52L.Ed.143];UnitedShoeMachineryCo.v.Ramloes,210Mo.681[109S.W. 567]. ThesameidenticalquestionwasdecidedinthecasesoftheUnitedShoe MachineryCo.v.Ramloes,231Mo.508,132S.W.1133,andinRoederv.Robertson, 202Mo.522,100S.W.1086. Boththefederalcourts,andthiscourtinthecasecited,andinmanymore,have uniformlyheldthat,wheneveranonresidentoraforeigncorporationhasavalid causeofactionunderthelawsofthisstateorunderthelawsofanyotherstate,he oritmaysuethereoninthecourtsofthisstate,providedlegalservicecanbehad uponthedefendant,andprovided,further,thatacitizenofthisstate,underitslaws, isauthorizedtosueinourcourtsonacauseofactionsimilartotheonesuedonby saidnonresidentorforeigncorporation;andthat,too,despiteastatuteofthestate denyingtosuchcorporationsuchrighttosue.Thoserulingsarebaseduponthe groundthat,undertheconstitutionalprovisionspreviouslymentioned,allcitizens oftheUnitedStatesareentitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunitieswhichare grantedbythelawsofanystatetoherowncitizens,aspreviouslystated;andthat anystatuteofastatewhichdeniessuchrightofsuchpersonorcorporationtosuein thecourtsofsuchstateisviolativeofsaidconstitutionalprovisions,andare thereforeabsolutelynullandvoid.Thatisnotonlythelawasannouncedbythose 10

courtsbutitwascorrectlysoannounced.Itwouldbebothunjustandintolerable foronestateoftheUniontopossessthepowerandauthoritytoenactavalid statuteclosingthedoorsofitscourtstocitizensoftheUnitedStates,orofother states,anddenytothemtherightorprivilegeofsuinginthecourtsthereof, whilethecitizensofsuchstateenjoythatrightorprivilege.Tosoholdwouldbe notonlytonullifythespiritoftheprovisionsofthefederalConstitutionpreviously mentioned,buttheletterthereofaswell. While,aspreviouslystated,counselforthepetitionercitesomerespectable authoritiesholdingthattheLegislatureandcourtsofastatepossesssuchpower andauthority,uponanexaminationofthemitwillbeseenthattheyweredecided solelyupontheprincipleofcomity,andtheconstitutionalprovisionsmentioned werenotconsidered.Consequentlytheyhavenobindingeffectuponthiscourt. Havingthusseenthatthedoorsofourcourts,underthelawofcomity,the statutesofthisstateaspreviouslyquoted,andtheconstitutionalprovisions beforementioned,areeveropenedtoallcitizensoftheUnitedStatesandthe citizensofthevariousstatestosueuponanyvalidtransitorycauseofaction, whichmightbesueduponinourcourts,byacitizenofthisstate,itonlyremains forus,inthisconnection,toascertainwhetherornotthecauseofactionofMrs. Rawn,theplaintiffinthecaseagainstthepetitioner,isavalidtransitorycauseof action,andcouldacitizenofthisstatesueinourcourtsonasimilarcauseofaction. StateofMissouriv.PacificMutualLifeInsuranceCompany:143S.W.483,at497 thru498(1911).
http://books.google.com/books?id=QZE7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA497#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thenextreasongivenbythecircuitjudgeisthatifjurisdictionisconferredby consentitdoesnotbecomeobligatoryuponthecourttoentertainjurisdiction.The correctnessofthispositionmustdependupontherightoftheplaintifftoseek redressinthecourtsoftheState.Ifapartyhasarighttoplanthissuitinacircuit courtofthisState,thecircuitjudgehasnodiscretiontoexerciseinthematter.He cannotsaytoonesuitor,Iwillretainyoursuit,andtoanother,Iwilldismissit.It isamongthefundamentalrightsofapeopleunderonegovernmentthatthey maybesecuredintheacquirement,possessionandenjoymentofproperty,and forthispurposecourtsareinstitutedaspartoftheOrganicLaw,inwhichevery personshallhavehisremedybydueprocessoflaw.Itissecuredasaprivilege towhicheverycitizenoftheUnitedStatesisentitled.Theredressofwrongsand themeansofenforcingcontractsareofthegreatestconsequencetothecitizensof everyState. Article4,2,oftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesdeclaresthatthe citizensofeachStateshallbeentitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunitiesof citizensintheseveralStates.IncommentinguponthisclauseoftheConstitution, theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,inConnerv.Elliott,59U.S.(18How.)593 11

{15L.ed.498},said:Wedonotdeemitneedfultoattempttodefinethemeaningof thewordprivilegesinthisclauseoftheConstitution.Itissaferandmorein accordancewiththedutyofajudicialtribunaltoleaveitsmeaningtobe determined,ineachcase,uponaviewoftheparticularrightsassertedanddenied therein....Itissufficientforthiscasetosaythat,accordingtotheexpresswords andclearmeaningofthisclause,noprivilegesaresecuredbyit,exceptthosewhich belongtocitizenship.TherighttobringsuitintheseveralcourtsofthisState havingjurisdictionisaprivilegeofeverycitizenofthisState.Especiallyisthistrue withreferencetotheenforcementofcontracts.AcitizenofanotherStatemay comeintothis[State],andacquireandenjoyproperty.Hemayinheritand transmitproperty.Hemayenterintocontracts,tothesameextentthatacitizen ofthisStatecandoso,andinthishisrightsareguaranteedbytheabove provisionoftheConstitution;andIthinkthathisrighttobringsuitinthisState, inanycasewhereacitizenoftheStatemay,isalsoguaranteedandprotectedby thisprovisionoftheConstitution.CofrodevGartner:7L.R.A.511,at514 (1890).
http://books.google.com/books?id=_JQKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA514#v=onepage&q&f=false

3.OnNovember19,1883,thedefendantinerror,whilewalkingonChurch Street,inthecityofDetroit,wasthrowntothegroundandreceivedseverepersonal injuriesinconsequenceofadefectinthesidewalk.Fortheseinjuriesshe,asa citizenofOhio,broughtheractionintheCircuitCourtoftheUnitedStatesagainst thecity,andrecoveredaverdictandjudgmentfortenthousanddollars..... ...AcitizenofanotherStategoingintoMichiganmaybeentitledunderthe federalConstitutiontoalltheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensofthatState;but underthatConsiderationhecanclaimnomore.Hewalksthestreetsandhighways inthatState,entitledtotherightsandprotection,butnoneother,thanthose accordedbyitslawstoitsowncitizens.Detroitv.Osbourne:135U.S.492,at495, 498(1890).
http://books.google.com/books?id=esYGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA495#v=onepage&q&f=false

...Whatevermaybethescopeofsection2ofarticleIVandweneednot,in thiscaseenteruponaconsiderationofthegeneralquestiontheConstitutionof theUnitedStatesdoesnotmaketheprivilegesandimmunitiesenjoyedbythe citizensofoneStateundertheconstitutionandlawsofthatState,themeasureofthe privilegesandimmunitiestobeenjoyed,asofright,byacitizenofanotherState underitsconstitutionandlaws.McKanev.Durston:153U.S.684,at687(1894).


http://books.google.com/books?id=mmkUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA687#v=onepage&q=&f=false

******* 12

You might also like