
    PRAXEDES MORALES FIGUEROA ET AL., Plffs., v. RAMON VALDES COBIAN ET AL., Dfts.
    San Juan,
    Law,
    No. 1138.
    Demurrer to Complaint.
    Employers’ Liability Act.
    1. The Federal Employers’ Liability Act applies to railroads in territories or possessions of the United States as well as railroads between states and territories, and therefore applies to a railroad wholly within Porto Rico.
    Jurisdiction — Pleadings—Citizenship.
    2. A complaint which alleges that all the parties are residents of Porto Rico does not allege that they are citizens of Porto Rico, and therefore is not bad upon demurrer on the ground that it shows there is no diversity of citizenship.
    Note. — As to constitutionality, application, and effect of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, see notes in 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 38, and L.R.A. 1915C, 47.
    
      Jurisdiction — Pleadings—Citizenship.
    3. Qusere: Whether such complaint is bad because it does not affirmatively allege the citizenship of the parties.
    Jurisdiction — Employers’ Liability Act.
    4. Quasre: Whether this court has not jurisdiction of a suit brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, regardless of the citizenship of the parties, as being a Federal right conferred by Federal statute.
    Opinion filed August 24, 1916.
    
      Mr. JE. B. Wilcox for plaintiffs.
    
      Mr. Fmnlc Martinez for defendants.
   HamiltoN, Judge,

delivered tbe following opinion:

This is a suit by tbe personal representative of an employee of tbe Valdes railroad under tbe Employers’ Liability Act of April, 1908, as amended in April, 1910.

Tbe demurrer sets up that tbe railroad of tbe defendants is not run or operated between territories or states. Tbe second section of tbe act, however, makes it apply to railroads in territories or in possessions of tbe United States, and so tbe point raised is immaterial.

Tbe further ground of demurrer is presented that tbe plaintiffs and defendants are by tbe complaint shown to be all Porto Eicans and therefore there is no proper diversity of citizenship. Tbe complaint, however, does not say this. Tbe complaint merely says that all tbe parties reside in Porto Eico. It might be defective because it does not allege citizenship of plaintiffs or defendants, and it would be well for it to be amended in tbis regard. This point, however, is not presented, and so is not passed upon. It would be well not to pass upon it for the further reason that it may be argued the right in question is a Federal right, being conferred by a Federal statute, and so applies and is enforceable regardless of citizenship. This point is not decided one way or the other.

The demurrer is overruled.  