Opinion of the Court. as well include what the testator expects to acquire, as what he then actually holds. The term, all my property,' may as well include all which may be his at his decease, as all which is his at the date of the will, and will be construed to be so intended, unless there are words in the description which limit and restrain it. We are then brought back to the particular description, the whole of my lands and buildings lying and being in the town of Hatfield.' There are certainly no words, and nothing in the will, showing an intent to limit it to the lands and buildings then held by him. No such intent can be presumed. Had it been all my lands and buildings in Hatfield or elsewhere in the original will, the law would have equally restrained its operation to lands then held, not because it was the intent of the testator that it should so operate, but because, assuming that it was his intent that all should pass, such intent is in contravention of the rule of law, and cannot be carried into effect. "The court are of opinion that this general description of the whole of his lands and buildings in Hatfield is broad enough to embrace the whole estate there, whether acquired before or subsequently to the making of the will, and there is nothing in the terms or construction of the will which would warrant us in restraining it to the lands then owned. By the Revised Statutes it is provided that a will shall embrace afteracquired real estate as well as personal property, when such is the intent of the testator. These statutes do not affect this will, and I only allude to them by way of illustration. Suppose this will had been made after the Revised Statutes, and the question should be, whether the estate now in controversy passed by this devise. There seems to be no doubt that it would, the description being general of all lands in Hatfield, without limitation as to the time of acquisition. Then, if this description was sufficient to include all real estate in Hatfield, it would have passed by the original will, but for the rule of law restraining the operation of all devises to estate held by testator at the date of the devise. But when the date is brought down by the republication of the will, it takes effect upon all estate acquired between the original date and the Syllabus. republication, and held by the testator at the time of the republication. Had there been a general residuary clause, for instance, such would clearly have been the effect of a republication. But the only difference is that a residuary clause embraces all estate whenever acquired; but if the description actually used is sufficiently large to embrace the estate in controversy, the result must be the same as to such estate.” These views are directly in point in the present case, where the language is just as comprehensive, and manifests just as clearly an intention of the testator to devise all his lands in the State of Oregon. It may, therefore, be laid down as a general proposition, that where the testator makes a general devise of his real estate, especially by residuary clause, he will be considered as meaning to dispose of such property to the full extent of his capacity; and that such a devise will carry, not only the property held by him at the execution of the will, but also real estate subsequently acquired of which he may be seized and possessed at the date of his death, provided there is testamentary power to make such disposition. 1 Jarman on Wills, 326, 5th ed., and other authorities cited. From the foregoing considerations we are of opinion that there was no error in the judgment of the court below, and the same is accordingly Affirmed. CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY v. McGEORGE. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR No. 965. Submitted November 27, 1893. - Decided January 3, 1894. Exemption from being sued out of the district of its domicil is a privilege which a corporation may waive, and which is waived by pleading to the merits. The fact that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant reside in the district in which the suit is brought do not prevent the operation of the waiver. VOL. CLI-9 Statement of the Case. When a defendant corporation voluntarily submits itself to the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court of the United States, its action cannot be overruled at the instance of stockholders and creditors, not parties to the suit so brought, but who were permitted to become parties by an intervening petition. On the 8th day of August, 1892, the Central Trust Company, a corporation created by and existing under the laws of the State of New York, filed a bill in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia against the Virginia, Tennessee and Carolina Steel and Iron Company, created by and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. The bill alleged that the defendant company had a place of business and carried on its business at Bristol, in the Western District of Virginia, and owned property, real and personal, at Bristol and elsewhere in the State of Virginia; that the said defendant company was insolvent; that the plaintiff company had obtained a judgment on the law side of the court, on which an execution had been sued out and returned by the marshal nulla bona, and prayed for the appointment of a receiver. The defendant company appeared by its president, John C. Haskell, and consented to the appointment of a receiver, and thereupon Judge Bond made an order appointing said John C. Haskell and D. H. Conklin receivers of said defendant company. On the same day two other bills were filed in suits styled as follows: The Central Trust Company of New York v. The South Atlantic and Ohio Railroad Company, and The Virginia, Tennessee and Carolina Steel and Iron Company v. The Bristol Land Company. In each of said additional bills the complainant company alleged the insolvency of the defendant company as evidenced by a judgment obtained against it by confession, in the court on its law side, on which an execution had issued and been returned on the same day as nulla bona. In the first named of these last two suits, the defendant company appeared by its vice-president, John C. Haskell, and consented that a receiver should be appointed; and in the last-named suit the Statement of the Case. defendant company appeared by its president, John C. Haskell, and consented to the appointment of a receiver, and thereupon Judge Bond appointed said John C. Haskell and D. H. Conklin receivers of each of said companies respectively. On the 19th day of October, 1892, a petition was presented to the Circuit Court by William McGeorge and others, claiming to be stockholders and creditors of the Virginia, Tennessee and Carolina Steel and Iron Company, and John M. Bailey, claiming to be the "valid receiver" of the corporations named, by virtue of an order made by Hon. D. W. Bolen, judge of the 15th judicial circuit of Virginia, in vacation, on the 6th day of August, 1890, asking that they might be made parties complainants or defendants as the court might determine, and that the several causes named might be consolidated and heard together. The petition further alleged that the Virginia, Tennessee and Carolina Steel and Iron Company was the main and substantial company; that the South Atlantic and Ohio Railroad Company and the Bristol Land Company were mere offshoots or dependent companies; that the several confessions of judgments, entered in the court on the 8th day of August, 1892, were made by a person who had no power or authority to make such confessions of judgment; that said judgments were procured by fraud and collusion between the representatives, respectively, of the complainant and defendant companies, and that the orders made by Judge Bond, appointing receivers for each of said defendant companies, were obtained by misrepresentation, fraud, and collusion by and between said representatives of the complainant and defendant companies. The said petition further alleged that in the cause of The Central Trust Company of New York v. The Virginia, Tennessee and Carolina Steel and Iron Company the court was without jurisdiction, for the reason that the complainant company was a corporation created by and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and a citizen and resident of said State of New York, and that the defendant company was a corporation created by and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, and a citizen and resident of said State of New Jersey. Opinion of the Court. The said petition was filed by leave of the court, and a rule was awarded, returnable on the 6th day of December, 1892. The complainant company, the Central Trust Company of New York, filed an elaborate answer to said petition, denying under oath its material allegations. The defendant company, the Virginia, Tennessee and Carolina Company, filed a separate answer to the said petition, denying its allegations, as did also the other two defendant companies. On the 16th day of May, 1893, the district judge filed an opinion and decree, declining to consolidate the said cases, and treating the petition of McGeorge and others as the answer of codefendants. The court decided that it had no jurisdiction, because while the parties complainant and defendant were citizens of different States, yet neither of them was a citizen of the State in which the suit was brought. The order appointing the receivers was accordingly vacated and the bill of complaint dismissed. From this decree an appeal was taken and allowed to this court. Mr. Adrian H. Joline, for appellant. No brief filed for appellee. MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court. The court below, in holding that it did not have jurisdiction of the cause, and in dismissing the bill of complaint for that reason, acted in view of that clause of the act of March 3, 1887, as amended in August, 1888, which provides that "no civil suit shall be brought in the Circuit Courts of the United States against any person, by any original process or proceeding, in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant;" and, undoubtedly, if the defendant company, which was sued in another district than that in which it had its domicil, had, by a proper plea or motion, sought to avail itself of the statutory exemption, the action of the court would have been right. But the defendant company did not choose to plead that provision of the statute, but entered a general appearance, and joined with the complainant in its prayer for the appointment |