The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-11-24
Important Ia Aliens aud Unnaturalized Resi-
dents in the United states.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Before Hon. Judge DAILY.


Nov 2a-A'erander 0enniston and Others VS.. The Nev
Fork and Neac Harm Railroad Company.-Duy, j.
This application tho part of the defendant for an
order directing the to be removed to the United
States Circuit Count for tn district The petition alleges
that the defendants corporation created and exist
ing under law Of the State of Connecticut, in which
State the ra cad is in part sit lated and the business
carried on; and that such corporation is, within the
twelf section Of the Judiciary act of the United Sts
citizen Of the state If Connecticut; and they further
aileee, upon information and belief that the plaintiffs
etiizons Iesiaen the state Of new YORK. la
TO the application the plaintiffs up and show
by affidavit, thai three OF The plain ills Alex ander Dem
nstcn, John Iennston and William Cross aliens, be-
ing subjects oi the Queen OF Great Britain in which
kngdom they now reside; and hey fur her show that
the summons ana complaint in this action served
IN conformity with 'he sta ute OF The state autho-
ri2ing the deienoants 10 Continue their road through
part Of this STATE, ulon the route Of the conlpa.
ny. uncer the Judiciary act Of 1882 the Circuit
Courts OF the ed sates have concurrent jurisdic
ton with the State tonrs when the matter in dispute
exceeds FIVE hnndred dollars, when alien IS party
and WREN the suit Is b.twe.n citizen Ot the State whore
Tie suit is btoueh. and citizen ofan.tber STATE and ny
the 18th section Of thai act T suit be commenced 10
airy STATE court against alien, by citizen vi the
state in which The suit is brought against citizen of
smother state" may be removed FOR li. INFO the
Ciicuit Cuuf Of he n,led States 10 be held IN the dis
ict vherc the suit pending This is pot suit aganss
alien, but snit brought by four Ilanrs-thrce Of
whom are aliens citizen Of the -tae-ag anst
corporation originally created by the laws Of the State
Of Ccnnoc cut and doing business in that State; and
question 10 De determn d is. whether, within the
n
ced by ctizn of this state against citizen of another
State U has been he'd by the courts Of the United States
that, within the meaning Of the Judiciary act corpora
on s citizen Of The State where is created doing
finesf Ripple Ecla and Raritan Canal Com
paDy, IA How. u. 5. Sc; salmon Falls Manufact turing
Company Goddard ID. 4i6; Philadelphia and Reading
RailIs ad Company Derby, H. 49, Marshall vs. alti-
more and Ohio Rsilroad Company III How. 3ll) With
in The meaning Of the act therefore the New York and
Ne haven Railroad Company Is citizen OF the state of
Connecticut; but il is insisted that, by a:t Of
the Legislature Of tho State Of Now York, UAws Of
1S46 21 IL IN also citizen Of this State and that
such bcipg the CT the Courts OF the ned have
juriscictorthe suit bling between plaintiffs one OF
whom is CITIZEN Of this State and corporat ion also
citizen Of his State. The act Of the Legislature of
this state Is set eating the defenda corpora
ton but an act which recognizes them corporation
already created and existing by the laws Of the State Of
Connecticut and ganting tnem, such exiadag corpo
ration certain rights and privileges in this State The
act makes their previous Incorporation by act OF the
legislature Of he state OF Connecticut and authorizes
them TO extend and cont nue. their road through part
Of ihis state with liberty for that purpose to purchase
and hold real estate which privileges granted upon
certain conditions and subject to certain liabilities The
personality of the defendants therefore, citizen
within the meaning of tho Judiciary Act of the United
States, was established and fixed by the act Of the State
Of Connecticut which frs. gave tbem their corporate
being and for the purposes Of this motion they must be
rega-ec and treated a. citizen Of that State The
question: therefore, again recura whether the fact thar
one OF the plaintiffs y citizen OF this state makes this
suit lotwecn citizen of the State where the suit l.
brought and citizen Of another State, to autho-
rise Its removal into the Court of the United States.
In stravbridge vs.. Curtis, 0 Cranch 26, G. r. Mar
sbai held that each distinct interest should he rcpre
scented ~ pers ons all Of whom entitled to sue or may
be sued in the federal courts that H. when the interest
II JOINT each OF the persons concerned in that interest
must lie competent 10 liable 10 he sued in tho
courts of the United States" Hcro the interest on the
part OF the Plaintiffs represer ted by four persons one OF
whom citizen Of the State and three arc aliens
in respect 20 acnage, Is has been held that the
courts of the United states have DOT jurisdiction Of suits
between aliens, hut only when alien aliens consti
tue party and citizen orcitizcns the other Mossman
W. 2ginscn Dallas, II: Montalct Murray Cranch
40 Hodg Bocrbank Cran:h 300; Wardvs Accdou-
a bK n
plaintiff against deendant Who il citizen Chppcn-
dale vs. Iechenany, Cranch, 200, and rice rcsa BY
plaLG who Il citizen against alien defendant. in
company tho corporation being, Tor the purpose Of
determining The jurisdiction Of the United States Court
citizen. and the other plaintiff citizen OF this
state might them a citizen Of another State.
Each q the parties plaintiffs and defendants possessing
under The construction given 70 this by Chief Justice
Marshall, the requisite qualifications to sue or be
sued in the courts Of The United states. II is in
sisted, the cfore that The Circuit Court OF thi. ds riot
has jurisdiction Of suit Ike ,hs brought AGAINST
citizen Of another State By plaintiffs one Of whom il
citizen OF the ate and the others aliens and that such
Icing tho fact, the light Of removal exists Bat /. does
not follow, because The Circuit, Court would have had u
iisdc,ion Of . suit Il II had been originally brought
here 'bat tie def ndants have right TO remove Il
there An alien plaintiff riay sue citizen In tho courts
Of Tho United States but II We thinks proper 10 bring his
,uit 10 state court there Is no authority to removing
twelfth ecion Of the act and IL makes no provision for
oh case when the suit Is against alien or when
the suit H. between citizen Of tne State whore tho suit Is
ii ought and citizen Of another State aud suit by an
alien plaintiff IL not embraced under either head Neither
does the prcscn, suit come within either Of the two
In which right TO remove T. given BY this section l. i
not buit against allen but suit brought by aliens
concintly with citizen, and the fact that Of the
arah is citizen Of n, stts dos Not s make suit
suit Tor having but JOINT interest he could not bring
u alone The suit Is brought by the four plaintiffs who
but by them and they not severally citizens q
suit brought BY them upitedy IL not suit between
ciuen OF inc tate and citizen Of another state Tho
motion must therefore lie denied