THISD NA.T. BANK OF BALTIMOBB V. TBAIi. 605 �ing^ association, established in the district of Maryland, or that it is established underthe law of the United States pro- viding for national banking associations. There are other Baltimores than the one in Maryland, and there does not appear to be in the national bank aot anything to prohibit an association formed in any other state from having been the first to take the title of the plaintiff, if they had seen fit, and if the comptroller of the currency had approved. The name of the bank is subject only to the approval of the comptroller of the currency, and we find nothing in the act itself which ■would prevent an association from adopting any name which he approves of. It is argued that as section 5243 imposes a fine upon any firm or corporation, not organized under the national bank act, which shall use the word "national" as part of the name of such corporation or partnership, it fol- io ws that the title "National Bank of Baltimore" necessarily implies that it is lawfully established under that aot. This we do not think is a necessary inference, or that it is equiva- lent to the positive averment required. It is quite supposa- ble that the name might be used unlawfuUy, notwithstanding the fine imposed by the statxite. �The supreme court bas never relaxed the rule that the facts essential to jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the record, and cannot be argumentatively deduced from other averments. In Rohertson v. Case, 97 U. S. 646, the case had been instituted in the United States circuit court for the district of Texas, and the pleadings stated that the plaintiff resided in "the county of Maçon, in the state of Illinois." It was strongly argued that, as the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution declares that ail persons born or natural- ized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside, the plaintiff was 'prima fade either an aUen or a citizen of the state of Illinois, in which he resided, and in either eapacity entitled to sue in the circuit court for the dis- trict of Texas; but the supreme court, while acknowledging that there was force in this suggestion, declared it to be un- wise to modify the long-established rule on the subject of ����
