Opinion of the Court. a court of record, may require security for costs to be given where the plaintiff was, when the action was commenced, a person residing without the State." Or if the defendant in this action had, within the same period, brought, in one of the courts of New York, a suit against the present plaintiff, upon a cause of action for an "injury to personal property, in consequence of negligence," it could not be doubted, in view of the decisions heretofore cited, that an attachment could have been sued out, and sustained, under sections 635 and 636 of the code, which provide that a warrant of attachment against the property of one or more defendants in such an action may be granted upon the application of the plaintiff, where it appears by affidavit "that the defendant is not a resident of the State." Could Penfield, in the last case supposed, have been deemed a nonresident of New York when sued for "an injury to personal property in consequence of negligence," and under the same facts be regarded as a resident of New York if he sued the same party "for a personal injury resulting from negligence?" Could he be deemed a resident of the State for the purpose of bringing this action, immediately after his family reached Brooklyn, and a non-resident if the railroad company had, at the same time, sued him in New York, and taken out an attachment against his property? The answer to these questions suggests that, in view of the course of decisions in New York, the plaintiff, by retaining his residence for purposes of business in St. Louis, did not become a resident of New York, within the meaning of section 390, until he changed his actual residence to that State. If he had, before the expiration of the period limited by the law of Tennessee, quitted his residence in Missouri and joined his family in New York for the purpose of making the latter State his residence in fact, he would have been entitled to bring his action within the period fixed by the laws of New York for the commencement of actions like this by one who is a resident of that State when the cause of action accrues. As under the evidence the jury could not, by any reasonable inference from the proof, have found that the plaintiff became Statement of the Case. himself a resident of New York, within a year after the cause of action accrued, the instruction to find for the defendant was right. Judgment affirmed. CLOUGH v. CURTIS. BURKHART v. REED. APPEALS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF IDAHO. Nos. 1133, 1134. Argued January 27, 28, 1890. Decided March 17, 1890. The jurisdiction of the several courts of the Territory of Idaho is a rightful subject of legislation by the territorial legislature. An act of the territorial legislature conferring upon the Supreme Court of the Territory original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate, review, prohibition, habeas corpus and all writs necessary to its appellate jurisdiction is not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or with any act of Congress. Section 1910 of the Revised Statutes does not forbid a territorial legislature from conferring original jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court of the Territory in such cases. This court has jurisdiction over judgments of a territorial court: (1) denying an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the secretary of the Territory to record certain proceedings as part of the proceedings of a session of the legislature of the Territory; and (2) denying an application for a like writ to compel the chief clerk of the House of Representatives of the Territory to bring his minutes and journals into the court in order that they may be there corrected in the presence of the court; and it is held that there was no error in denying applications for such writs of mandamus, when they were not asked for by one claiming to have a beneficial interest in sustaining or defeating the measures which it was sought to have incorporated into the official records. The courts of the United States cannot be required, in a case involving no private interest, to determine whether particular bodies, assuming to exercise legislative functions, constitute a lawful legislative assembly. THE case, as stated by the court, was as follows: These cases depend upon the same principles of law, and will be considered together. It appears from the record of the first one (No. 1133) that upon the petition of the appellant to the Supreme Court of Statement of the Case. the Territory of Idaho, an alternative writ of mandamus was issued, stating substantially the following facts: The appellant was and is the president of the Council of the 15th session of the legislature of Idaho, and the appellee is the secretary of that Territory. On the 60th day of that session, February 7, 1889, the Council continued in session until midnight, and thereafter until about one o'clock of the succeeding morning. About the latter hour in the morning of the 8th day of February, 1889, a communication was received from the chief clerk of the House of Representatives, announcing that that body had elected one George P. Wheeler as speaker pro tem. The petitioner declined to receive that message as a message from the House, for the reason that the latter body had no authority to elect a speaker after the expiration of the sixty days prescribed for the session by the act of Congress; and the petitioner, as president of the Council, announced to that body and declared "that, because the hour of 12 o'clock and after had arrived, and the time had elapsed in which the said legislature was permitted to transact business, therefore the said Council was adjourned without day." He then inquired of the chief clerk if the adjournment was recorded in the minutes of the proceedings of the session, and received from him the reply that it was. The Council then dispersed, and the petitioner and some of the members left the room, after which other members pretended to reorganize the Council, and to elect one S. F. Taylor president pro tem. thereof, and to elect other officers of the Council, and, also, assumed to transact legislative business, passing enactments which the persons, so pretending to be a legislature, claimed were acts of the legislature of the 15th session of the Territory. Seventeen acts were so passed after the time had expired for holding the session of the legislature. The writ also stated that in making up a record of the sixtieth day of the legislative session the clerk did not thereafter show him the same; and petitioner never saw, until after the clerk had filed with E. J. Curtis, the secretary of the Territory, certain papers which he claimed were the proceedings of the sixtieth day of the session of the Council, but which, in Statement of the Case. fact, were a false and fictitious account of those proceedings, signed by S. F. Taylor, and not signed by petitioner, president of the Council, as required by its rules and practice. The petitioner found that a part of the minutes or records had been cut out, and that there were three stubs of leaves which had been a part of the former proceedings of the records or minutes of said session. The part of the minutes reciting that the president of the Council declared the session adjourned, and his reasons therefor, had been cut out and were omitted from the minutes as filed with the secretary of the Territory. On the 14th of February, 1889, the petitioner, as the president of the Council, called the attention of the secretary of the Territory to said cut leaves, stating to him the proceedings that should have appeared therein, and handed to him a report thereof as they actually occurred, demanding that the same be incorporated with the proceedings of the legislature, and recorded as a part of the proceedings of the Council. The defendant, Edward J. Curtis, declined to record the adjournment proceedings as a part of the proceedings of the legislature. The petitioner then and there demanded that the report as furnished by him be certified to Congress as part of the proceedings of the legislature of Idaho for the fifteenth session. But defendant refused to report the said adjournment as a part of the proceedings. The petitioner, after having stated and certified to him, as secretary of the Territory, that all of the alleged proceedings, wherein it was stated that S. F. Taylor was president pro tem., were had after the hour of 12 o'clock, and after the adjournment of the Council by the president thereof, demanded that the subsequent proceedings and pretended legislation be not recorded as a part of the proceedings of the legislature; and, if already recorded, that the same be expunged from the record of the proceedings of the fifteenth session of the legislature; all of which the secretary declined to do, and he still declines to treat the proceedings and acts signed by S. F. Taylor, president pro tem., as null and void, and threatens to certify them to Congress as a part of the proceedings of the Council. Statement of the Case. The record in the second case (No. 1134) shows that upon the petition of H. Z. Burkhart, speaker of the House of Rep resentatives of Idaho Territory, 15th session, an alternative writ of mandamus was issued against Charles H. Reed, chief clerk of that body, and Edward J. Curtis, secretary of the Territory, alleging the following facts: The defendant Reed, as such chief clerk, has in his possession the minutes of the proceedings of the last day of the session of the House of Representatives, which minutes have been read and approved by that body, and so declared to it then and there by the speaker on the last day of such session. Thereafter the speaker asked the clerk if there was any further business before the House, and the latter replied there was none. After the hour of 12 o'clock midnight of the 7th day of February, 1889, being the 60th and last day of the session, the plaintiff, as speaker and acting as such, announced that the time had arrived when by the act of Congress the session closed by limitation of time, and declared the House adjourned sine die. To that announcement there was no dissent by the House or by any member thereof, but all acquiesced therein, and the speaker, acting as such, actually adjourned the House after the hour of 12 o'clock at night of the 60th day of the session. Upon such adjournment he and a portion of the Representatives left the assembly room, and thereafter several members of the legislature elected a speaker and assumed to pass acts and to perform the duties of the House. The writ in this case also states that it was and is the duty of the defendant Reed, as chief clerk, to make and keep correct and true minutes of the doings and proceedings of the House, and upon their approval by the speaker it is his custom and duty to sign the same as speaker. But Reed wrongfully and fraudulently falsified said record of the minutes of the House on its last day's session, and took from and kept out of the minutes the fact that the speaker had them read and approved, and declared the same duly approved, and that the speaker asked the clerk if there was any further business, to which the latter replied that there was none, and that the |