eemna v. beockhads. 763 �■4. Same— Same. • ■ �Mdd, upon the evidence in this case, (1) that such a change of domicile was made, and such a neW residence accjuired, as established citizenship in another state ; and that (2) a teraporary return to the former place of residence did not revive such former citizenship. — [Ed. �Plea to the Jurisdiction. �Jenkins, EUiott d Winkler, for plaintiff. �Cotzhausen, Sylvester e ScheUyer, for defendants. �Dyee, D. J. This case bas been heard upon a plea to the jurisdiction of the court. The complaint alleges that at the time of the commencement of the suit the plaintiff was a citizen of the state of Minnesota. The plea avers that she is, and always has been, a citizen of the state of Wisconsin, of which state the defendants are citizens, and proofs have been taken on the question of the plaintiff's residence and citizenship. ' The general rule upon the subject of citizenship is well settled. It is that, "in order to give jurisdiction to the courts of the United States, the citizenship of the party must be founded on a change of domicile, and permanent residence in the state to which he may have removed from another state. Mere residence is prima fade evidencQ of such change, although, when it is explained and shown to have been for temporary purposes, the presumption is destroyed. The intention is to be coUected from acts." Lessee of Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Wash. 101 ; 1 Abbott, (U. S.) Pr. 211. "If a cit- izen of one state think proper to change his domicile, and to remove himself and f amily * ♦ * into another state, -with a bona fide intention of abandoning his former place of resi- dence, and to beoome an inhabitant or resident of the state to which he removes, he becomes immediately upon such removal, accompanied with such intention, a resident citizen of that state within the meaning of the provision of the con- stitution relative to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and may maintain an action in the circuit court of the state which he has abandoned. * * * Time, in relation to his new residence, occupation, a sudden removal back after instituting a suit, and the like, are circumstances which may be relied upon to show that his first removal was not bona fide or per- ����
