The rule as to jurisdiction of the various federal courts in the act of 1888 is that the suit, where diverse citizenship exists, must be brought either in the district of the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant.1 Hence a national bank could be sued in a United States court in another district than the one where it is located if a good service could be obtained. But section 629 of the Kevised Statutes limits the district where a national bank may bring suit or be sued to the district where it is located.2 That statute must be considered as modified by the later statute. But in equity suits to remove a cloud from title - and the principle would apply to all suits of a local nature - the United States court where the property is situated would have jurisdiotion, provided the parties were either of them Don-residents, regardless of the fact as to whether either of them resided in the district where the property was situated.3 This covers cases where both are non-residents of the district but residents of different states, but it does not seem to cover the case where both are non-residents, but residents of the same state. Such was the holding of the courts as to suits against national banks, and it was decided that jurisdiction in another district was not gained by a service upon an officer of the bank in the foreign district.4 Where a national bank sues in a federal court it may sue the defendant in a transitory action in the district where he resides.5 But if the action is local in its nature it could only be brought in the district where the property was located, and if that was not the district wherein either the plaintiff or the defendant resided, it would seem to follow that the bank would be required to sue in the proper court of the state where the property was; but the courts have, as we have seen, held otherwise.6 If part of the defendants reside in one district in the state and part in another, the action, if not local, may be brought in either district.7 The act of congress of February 18, 1875 (18 Stat. 320), conferring jurisdiction on the state courts, gives it to the state, county or municipal court of the city or county where the bank is located.8 The same statute applies to suits for usury sued for as a penalty.9 A very remarkable judicial deliver--ance has denied the power of congress to impose upon the courts of a state, called in the opinion a foreign jurisdiction, the duty of enforcing this penal statute against usury.10 But assuming that a state court will not refuse to take jurisdiction on any such wild and untenable ground, a suit for a usurious penalty must be brought in a state court at least having the requisite jurisdiction under the state laws. Where usury is insisted upon as a defense it may be set up in any court where the usurious contract is sued upon.11 But as to other suits against national banks it is a vexed question whether the bank can be sued in any state court other than that of the district or county where it is located. One series of cases holds that as to actions transitory in their nature a national bank may be sued in any state court where service can be gained upon it, though it be the court of another state than the one where it is located.12 But since the means of gaining jurisdiction by attachment upon non-residents has been wrested from the New York courts,13 such jurisdiction could be gained only by service upon an officer within the state, and such service, on principle, would be bad.14 But it would still remain the rule that within the state the national bank could be sued in transitory actions, under these decisions, in a county of the state other than where the bank is located.15 Other cases have strenuously contended that a national bank can be sued only in that state court which has jurisdiction in the district or county where the bank is located.16 The Supreme Court of the United States, whose decision controls, holds that if the action is local the national bank should be sued in the court that has jurisdiction, wherever that may be, but in all other cases the bank must be sued in the county or district where it is located.17 The opinion in note 15 to this section does not examine the cases upon the subject, but shortly says that the statute so provides. Yet if the objection to the jurisdiction is not raised in the lower court it is waived.18

I7Manuf. Nat. Bank v. Baack, 8 Blatchf. 137; Petri v. Comni. Nat. Bank, 142 U. S. 644. But see First Nat. Bank v. Smith, 6 Fed. R. 215; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Mcllhaney, 42 Fed. R. 801, wrong.

18 Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Rogers, 1 N. Y. Supp. 757. Compare Third Nat. Bank v. Teal, 5 Fed. R. 503.

19Huffaker v. National Bank, 75 Ky. 287.

1 See 25 Stat. 433. The decisions upon this point are the following:

MoCormick v. Walthers, 134 U. S. 41, citing many other decisions, and Bostwick v. American Finance Co., 43 Fed. R. 897. Therefore a national bank could sue a non-resident in the district either where the bank resides or where the non-resident resided. And the bank could be sued in its own district as well as where the plaintiff resided.

2 If this statute is applied to suits against national banks it would conflict with the later statute.

3 See cases in note 6, supra.

4 Maine v. Second Nat. Bank, 6 Biss. 26. A state statute as to service upon a foreign corporation governs the federal courts. Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369.

5Manuf. Nat. Bank v. Baack, 8 Blatch. 137.

6Dick v. Foraker, 155 U. S. 404; United States v. a P. Co., 63 Fed. R481.

7 Third Nat Bank v. Harrison, 3

McCrary, 316. If part resided in the state where the bank was located and part in another state, what then would be the case ?

8 See Rev. Stat, Sec. 5198. This statute was held to apply to suits by, as well as. against, a national bank. This is now especially necessary, or a national bank could not sue a citizen of its own state at all.

9 Rev. Stat, Sec. 5198.

10 Miss. River Tel. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 74 111. 217. The judge who delivered this opinion had the longest service on the bench of any judge who ever sat in the Illinois Supreme Court. How he came to make such an incomprehensible decision, and why the other judges concurred, is a mystery.

11 See Sec. 200, ante.

12 Cooke v. State Nat Bank, 52 N. Y. 96, which contains some amusing ratiocination in regard to the power of congress; Robinson v. National Bank, 81 N. Y. 385; Holmes v.Wilmington Nat. Bank, 18 S. C. 31.

13 See the laconic submission in Bank of Montreal v. Fidelity Nat Bank, 112 N. Y. 667; and see Sec. 336, ante.

14 The officer would not be acting officially. See Maine v. Second Nat. Bank, 6 Biss. 26.

15 Fresno Nat. Bank v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. 491; Talmage v. Third Nat Bank, 27 Hun, 61, 97 N. Y. 531. But this idea is abruptly dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States (First Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 132 U. S. 141) with the short statement that so the law is, without any examination of the decisions.