leading to this suit, persuade us that the cause of action "arose" in Kentucky within the meaning of the Ohio borrowing statute. The bank was authorized to do its banking business in Louisville and did business in no other place. See 12 U. S. C. § 81. Nor was this bank's business any the less local because its shares were held in the portfolio of a Delaware corporation. Many provisions of federal law make national banks, in important aspects, peculiarly local institutions. See 12 U. S. C. §§ 30, 33, 34 (a), 36, 51, 62, 72. For jurisdictional purposes, a national bank is a "citizen" of the state in which it is established or located, 28. U. S. C. § 41 (16), and in that district alone can it be sued. 12 U. S. C. § 94. True, when insolvency occurs, there is a shift in bank management, but the bank's activities are still necessarily rooted in its local habitat. In this case the Receiver's office was located in Louisville, the home of the bank; payment of assessments, like other obligations due the bank, could have been made there, and, in fact, shareholders were notified by the Receiver to pay at his office in Louisville. Liquidation of a local bank, like its daily operations, must from necessity and in the interest of good business be carried on, in the main, in the community where the bank did business with its depositors and other customers. Practically everything that preceded the final fixing of liability of shareholders derived from Kentucky transactions. We have been referred to no Ohio decisions, and have been unable to find any, which contradict our conclusion that events which culminated in this suit justify our holding that this "cause of action" "arose" in Kentucky within the meaning of the Ohio statute. See Hunter v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 73 Ohio St. 110, 76 N. E. 563; Alropa Corp. v. Kirchwehm,

4 Whether notice by the Receiver to pay at a particular place could alter the conclusive situation as to where a cause of action might be considered to "arise" under other circumstances is a question we need not decide.

138 Ohio St. 30, 33 N. E. 2d 655; Payne v. Kirchwehm, 141 Ohio St. 384, 48 N. E. 2d 224; Bowers v. Holabird, 51 Ohio App. 413, 1 N. E. 2d 326; National Bondholders Corp. v. Stoddard, 22 Ohio O. 145, 8 Ohio Supp. 19. See also Hilliard v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 73 F. 2d 473, 475–476; Note, 15 U. of Cin. L. Rev. 337 (1941); Note, 21 Ohio O. 107 (1941). Therefore the judgment in No. 656 is affirmed.

In No. 593, the Pennsylvania action, the same considerations are controlling. The general statute of limitations of that state which would be applicable to this action had it arisen in Pennsylvania, like Ohio's general statute, provides a six-year period in which this suit could be brought. 12 Pa. Stat. § 31 (Purdon, 1931). But Pennsylvania also has a "borrowing statute" which provides: "When a cause of action has been fully barred by the laws of the state or country in which it arose, such bar shall be a complete defense to an action thereon brought in any of the courts of this commonwealth." 12 Pa. Stat. § 39 (Purdon, 1931). Our review of Pennsylvania decisions construing this statute persuades us that the borrowing statute is applicable to this case, that under that statute this cause of action "arose" in Kentucky, and that the five-year statute of Kentucky bars this action. See Mister v. Burkholder, 56 Pa. Super. 517; Fletcher's Estate, 45 Pa. D. & C. 673, 674; Bell v. Brady, 346 Pa. 666, 31 A. 2d 547; Shaffer's Estate, 228 Pa. 36, 40, 76 A. 716, 717. Cf. Rosenzweig v. Heller, 302 Pa. 279, 153 A. 346. See also Notes, 88 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 878 (1940), 4 U. of Pitt. L. Rev. 215 (1938). The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals in No. 593 is therefore reversed.

So ordered.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Syllabus.

UNITED STATES v. SMITH, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.

No. 498. Argued March 11, 1947-Decided June 2, 1947.

1. After a judgment of conviction has been affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals (upon an appeal in which the district court's denial of a motion for a new trial was one of the errors assigned) and the defendant has begun service of the sentence, a federal district court is without power under Rule 33 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to order a new trial sua sponte. Pp. 471–477.

2. Where, in such circumstances, a district court has ordered a new trial, the Government is entitled to writs of mandamus and prohibition from the Circuit Court of Appeals requiring that the order be vacated. Pp. 470,477.

156 F.2d 642, reversed.

The Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition by the United States for writs of mandamus and prohibition directed to the District Court and the judges thereof. 156 F.2d 642. This Court granted certiorari. 329 U. S. 703. Reversed, p. 477.

Assistant to the Attorney General McGregor argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Washington, Sewall Key and Melva M. Graney.

Robert T. McCracken argued the cause for Memolo, respondent. With him on the brief were Stanley F. Coar and C. Russell Phillips.

No appearance for Smith, United States District Judge, respondent.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The United States in this case sought writs of mandamus and prohibition from the Court of Appeals directed to the judges of the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to require that an order by which a new trial was granted to one John Memolo be vacated.

Memolo was convicted of tax evasion after jury trial before Judge William F. Smith. Three days later Memolo filed a motion for new trial and was given leave to file reasons in its support. He filed fifty-four reasons, such as the trial court's denial of continuance, of motion to quash the indictment, of motion for a bill of particulars, and of motion for a directed verdict. He complained also of the court's action in discharging some of the petit jurors, in admission and exclusion of evidence, in instructing the jury, and in conduct toward defendant and his counsel said to have been prejudicial. On the same day, Judge Smith denied the motion and sentenced Memolo to three years imprisonment and fines.

Memolo appealed, assigned as errors all of the motion grounds and, in addition, the denial of the motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed with a per curiam opinion declaring that it could perceive no substantial error in the proceedings. United States v. Memolo, 152 F. 2d 759. Petition for certiorari was denied by this Court, Memolo v. United States, 327 U. S. 800. Therefore, the Court of Appeals issued its mandate of affirmance and, in the conventional form, commanded that "such execution and further proceeding be had in said cause, as according to right and justice, and the laws of the United States, ought to be had, the said appeal notwithstanding." Memolo was then taken into custody and, on April 8, 1946, imprisoned in a federal penitentiary.

The following day the Clerk of the District Court received from Judge Smith an order dated April 8th "that judgment heretofore entered be vacated and that the verdict heretofore returned be set aside, and that a new trial be granted the defendant." It was accompanied by a "memorandum" reciting the history of the case and that "This Court, while the appeal was pending, reconsidered the grounds urged by the defendant in support of his motion for a new trial. It is our opinion upon this reconsideration that in the interest of justice a new trial should be granted the defendant." It assigned no more particular ground for the order. Memolo was thereupon released from the penitentiary on bail.

On the Government's petition to the Court of Appeals for writs directing that the order be vacated, Memolo was allowed to intervene. Judge Smith also answered asserting that his order "was in accordance with the mandate of this Court and was authorized by the Rules of Criminal Procedure of 1946, effective March 21, 1946, particularly Rule 33 thereof." He referred to his memorandum but did not further elucidate his reasons for granting a new trial. On consideration, the court below sitting en banc denied the petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition. 156 F. 2d 642. Two of the five judges dissented.

The mandate which the appellate court returned to the District Court was in the conventional and long-used form adapted to all appealed causes and contained no special directions peculiar to this case. It was neutral on the issues here raised and nothing in its terms either expressly authorized or prohibited the order for new trial. The power of the District Court to make such an order turns entirely on the Rules of Criminal Procedure cited and relied upon by Judge Smith.