Benjamin Bissell and others against Elihu Horton

September, 1808. Benjamin Bissell and others against Elihu Horton. in an action of necticut, of which the de-fondant had disseised the plaintiffs 18 months be-tinned fa pos-were <le-scribed as citizens of Ver-’""⅞⅛⅛¾ Connecticut, and-the defen-' dant was de-citizen "of & dwelling in (onnexticut: pfointiffiswere 'fvVniDHí"^» defendant a citizen of York, constitution^ and laws ofthe United States; and that the fort^’wás*not j“: nsdiction of this court, THIS was an action of ejectment for lands in Hebron, ⅜ in the state of Connecticut, alleging that the defendant ' ousted the plaintiffs of the demanded premises eighteen r * months before the commencement of the action, and had , . . ever since remained m possession. Dana and Gilbert, of counsel for the defendant, moved to erase this cause from the docket, on the ground, that from the* description of the parties, it did , . , . . ,. . not appear tobe within the jurisdiction ofthe court. Hie plaintiffs were described thus : “ Benjamin Bissell, late of Hebron, in the county of Tolland, in the state of Connecticut, now of Saint-Johnsbury, in the county ot Caledonia, in the state of Vermont, a citizen of the state of Vermont, Abed Bissell, Hezekiah Bissell, Elijah House ’ _ Francis Norton, John Thompson Peters, of said Hebron⅜ and Asa Willey, late of said Hebron, now of Ellington, In the county of Tolland aforesaid, citizens of the state of ConnecticutThe defendant was described as follows: “ Elihu Horton, of Greerjield, m the county or Saratoga, in the state of New- York, a citizen of the state of JVew-York, now dwelling in said Hebron.” To ? . support the jurisdiction, it ought to appear, either that the plaintiffs are citizens of Vermont, and the defendant a citizen of Connecticut, or that the plaintiffs are citizens 1 _ of Connecticut, and the defendant a citizen of New- York, The first part of the alternative is not true ; for all the plaintiffs, except one, are described as residing in Connecticut, and are averred to be citizens of Connecticut. The second part of the alternative is equally groundless ; for it is averred, that the defendant is now dwell-, ing in Hebron, in this state. 3‘. T. Peters, contra, insisted, that as the defendant was expressly averred to be a citizen of JVew- York, he múst be, so considered, notwithstanding his residence in Hebron at the time of commencing the suit. He might be transiently dwelling there, without any determination to remain there permanently. It will be admitted, that he is still a citizén of JVew- York, unless he has become a citizen of Connecticut; but a transient residence here will not make him such. The word “ citizen,” within the intent and meaning of the constitution and laws of the United Stales, in regard to this subject, has reference to such persons only as have the rights of freemen, and are eligible to civil offices, within the district where they dwell. But it does not appear, that the defendant has any such rights and qualifications in this state. [MAJORITY — Livingston, J.] Livingston, J. The rights of suffrage and eligibility to office are of no weight in the decision of this point! it is to be determined on other grounds. The plaintiffs are partly in Vermont, and partly in Connecticut. They are not, therefore, citizens of Vermont within tiie constitution and laws of the United States. With regard to the defendant, it is admitted, that he now resides in Connecticut, and has resided here during the time in which he has been in possession of the demanded premises ; which clearly evinces a determination in him to remain here permanently. Per Curiam, Let the cause he erased from the docket.