Case Name: Fish against Stoughton
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1801-10
Citations: 2 Johns. Cas. 407
Docket Number: 
Parties: Fish against Stoughton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Cases
Volume: 2
Pages: 406–407

Head Matter:
Fish against Stoughton.
Where A. a British subject became a naturalized citizen, and took the oaths of abjuration and allegiance to this state in 1784; and in 1795, took an oath of allegiance to the king of Spain, and was appointed a consul by the Spanish king, and continued to reside in New York, without ever changing his domicil; it was held, that he was still to be considered as an American citizen, an not an alien or Spanish subject.
Pendleton, for the defendant, moved that all further proceedings in this cause be stayed; that the cause be removed to the circuit court of the United States, and the bail discharged. He read the defendant’s petition and affidavit.
Boyd, contra.
It appeared that the defendant was originally a British subject, and became a naturalized citizen of this state in 1784, and has ever since continued to reside in New York. He has, since his naturalization, been appointed a consul for Spain, and taken an oath of allegiance to the king of Spain.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The defendant was originally a British subject, and by an act of the legislature was made a naturalized *citizen of this state, and must have then in 1784 taken an oath of allegiance to this state. In 1795 he took an oath of allegiance to the king of ¡Spain, and was appointed by the Spanish king, his consul for this state, and has since been appointed consul-general for the United States. In this situation, he claims to be an alien, and, as such, entitled to the privilege of being sued in the courts of the United States. We are of opinion that he has no title to that privilege ; and without deciding on the general right of expatriation,( ) that he cannot be considered as having devested himself of the character of an American citizen ; for he cannot devest himself of that character without, at least, changing his domicil. While he continues to reside here, we have a right to consider him as a citizen of this state. If a different rule should prevail, it would be in the power of the sovereign of any other nation thus to naturalize any of our citizens ; and in the heart of our country, to detach them from the allegiance they owe to its government. The motion must be denied.
Motion denied.
(a) This question is considered, and the English and American authorities examined in 2 Kent Comm. ed. 1832, 39-50.