PAGE V. CITY OP CHILMOOTHE. 601 �60, but during the term at which the appearance was entered the defendant moved the court for, and obtainad, further time in which to answer ; and at the next succeeding term, upon its motion, it was granted further time in which to an- swer; and not until the expiration of this time was an excep- tion to the jurisdiction taken. The subject-matter of the suit is one over which this court has jurisdiction, and if the defendant resided within this district the residence of the parties would be such as to give the court jurisdiction. It is not a case where the parties must be residents of different districts in order to give the court jurisdiction, but both par- ties in patent suits may be residents of the district within which the suit is brought. Under the acts of congress con- ferring jurisdiction upon this court, the subject-matter and the citizenship of the parties, whether residing in this or the eastern division, would give this court jurisdiction of this cause if service had been made within this division. The provision in the act for the division of the district, that the suit should be brought in the division of the district in which the defendant resides, is not one creating the jurisdiction of this court, but is one for the personal convenience of the de- fendant. �This case is clearly distinguishable from the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the defendant, which hold that consent cannot confer jurisdiction, and that objections to the jurisdiction may be taken at any stage of the case. In those cases either the subject-matter or the citizenship, which was essential to give jurisdiction, did not exist; but in this case the only question is as to the place where the jurisdiction shall be exercised. �In Gracie v. P aimer, S Wheat. 699, the suit was brought in the state of Pennsylvania, and none of the defendants were citizens of that state, and Mr. Webster objected to the jurisdiction because it did not appear that the defendants were inhabitants of , or found in the district in whieh suit was brought, at the time of the service of the writ, as required by the eleventh section of the judiciary act of 1789. Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the court, stated ��� �
