268 PEDEBAL EEPOBTER. ���\ ���ers, by their counsel, in moving for the order which the state court made, and the contents of such order, show that the objection made is of no force in this court. �2. It is objeoted that the petition does not show that James . M. Brown and Howard Potter were and are personally eiti- zens of the United States, or of any state thereof, and that the averment is merely that they, "* * * astheyarethe ' qualified esecutors of the last will and testament of James Brown, deceased," were and are citizens of the state of New York. The case of Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S. 186, is cited. In that case certain persons, as executors, brought a suit in a state court of New York agiainst a citizen of New Jersey. The defendant, in .his' petition for reinoval, averred "that said
- |)iaiixtififs, as sucii' executors, are citizens of the state of New
York." 'The .oourt said : . ' .; �, " Clearly thi^ fs not «vfflcient. Where, fhe jprisdictijon of the; courts of the IJriitfed States (iependsupon the citizenship of the|Parties, it hasrefer- ietie* tfc'thfe parties a^ tiersons. 'JL'^etrtion'fdr l'eitto'rai'must, therefore, ^t^^e Sthe% persoi^l'Oatizepship of the pities/ and not teeir- official citizen- ship, i|fHiece pan be such a thing. i^rQpi the lapgii]^ge he^e employed, the court caay propierly infer that, as. persons, the defendants in errQr were •ntot^titizena df ifeW Yoik."^6i all' that a^'peare, they may have'iieen citizeasbf iiew- Jersey; as was the defendant.' 'Holding, aswe do, that a st^^iCflurt is not boujij3^to,surrender itsjurisdiction, upon a petition for remova^, until a,t least p petition is flied, which, upon its face, shows the ii^t of'the petitidnef lo the transfer, it was not error f or the court to retain the«e causes.-" ■ : . �The facts of the present case do not bring it within the diccisicn in Amory y. Amory. The expressio]ci, "as they are the qualified executors," etc., introduced by the plaintiff in the title of the suit, and stiictly followed afterwards, is fairly to be iiiterpreted as ineaning and reading, "sued as qualified executors," etc. The petition is fairly to be read as averring that James M. Brown and Howard Potter, sued as qualified executors, are citizens, etc.; meaning that they, personally, sued as executors, are citizens, etc. The averment as to James M. Brown and Howard Potter must be taken in the same sense as the averment as to Schultze, which is that he, "also a qualified executer," is a citizen, etc., and as averring fiubstantially that they, qualified executors, etc., are citizens, ��� �
