
    C. M. HERNDON v. THE ÆTNA INSURANCE COMPANY.
    
      Removal of Causes — Residence—Citizenship—Foreign Corporation— United States Circuit Court.
    
    1. The fact that the co-plaintiffs, residents of different States, have sued a foreign corporation, resident of Great Britain, does not render unnecessary the allegation of citizenship in different States in order to secure a removal to the United States Circuit Court.
    
      2. This case is, in all material respects, like'that of Herndon v. The Lancashire Insurance Co. (decided at this term of the Court), and must be governed by it.
    This was a Motion for the removal óf a cause to the United -'States Circuit Court, heard by, Graves, J., at the October Term, 1889, of DurhaM Superior Court.
    
      The plaintiffs are C. M. Herndon, a resident of North Carolina, and Geo. S. Louche, and W. H. Wheeler, and P. H. Glatfeller, residents of Pennsylvania. The defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Great Britain. The plaintiffs have sued the defendant on an insurance policy, demanding the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.
    At the appearance term of Durham Superior Court, to which this suit was brought, the defendant filed its petition for removal to the United States Circuit Court for the Western District of North Carolina, setting forth the foregoing facts; and also filed bond in the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars in form as prescribed by law. The petition was duly verified and the bond justified. His Honor refused to make an order for removal, and directed the case to be proceeded with in the State Court.
    From this ruling the defendant appealed.
    
      Mr. 'W. W. Fuller, for plaintiff
    
      Messrs. John W. Hinsdale (by brief) and J. S. Manning, for defendant.
   MiskkiMON, C. J.:

This case is, in all material respects for the present purpose, like that of Herndon v. Lancashire Company, decided at this term, and must be governed by it. The defendant here is a corporation of Great Britain, in a sense a foreign subject, but this does not render unnecessary the allegation of the citizenship of the plaintiffs. Massman v. Higginson, 4 Dal., 12; Hodgson v. Benderbank, 5 Cran., 303; Damil v. Wentyman, 2 Pet , 136; Curtis v. Jones, U. S. R., 111; Steamship Company v. Tugman, 106 U. S. R., 118.

There is no error. Let this opinion be certified to the Superior Court. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.  