, 1869-06-21

sue or b sued In the courts Of the United StAte4
asss Ssn + ,sa Es g tss u a. respect
Tia c2se u Hownrt has modified this opinion
u Ctance, adopting the argument Of Nj.
inas : rors ane = 4 aops Insurance connanI eass =
pI:1Nee Of t1e.nE and being saed.
It seemed to tue Court Tiers In much more Aoaad
8 =, .po 70 oss re- sppsecl.t.oa Z Of tu7 sab
u the case of the bank Of augusta y Erie, Is
Peters. TIP Ii whrn he plxce. The no ser or \
s1 etesS! :!t = ons sssss 10 n3ese eoa a
We eshte., AID KsJs that the eo;IIIy thus ex-
fcldf > no impeachment OF soscrtrsutv, Il beng
ased eat lEi..sss y; ii @ sssa oses,.ry q 70 .is
.t,ller cr :ej1ttri.I 10 It's tntsre.tA
THIS rover, then, existing By comfy only, and
the policy Of State "a admit l., tie pretcace that
U Rats respect The corporation Il yesled With x1I
the rights of citizen VI ano.het State vsaisneA
The aaras comfy which rscoZulxef thesr coatf1tts
should rtCoEl1xe thslf poRe5 ~ enforce them BY
suit: otherwise the powaZ 70 contract woui1 b. III
Rrvat degree nukatory.
Of Wiley '. Farmer. II AlA, ca. &C.. tk.. noa-
rrsldent owner cannot be taxed hlghes thAa
rtslde1t, no1 Arr they under law noN being co.,
The individuals composing the Corporation Elay
be citt1ens, hut the ownership Of ,ht.r ootpotase
property .a 70: IN the tadi7ldsa! Eeutess, bat ia
Inc corporation Az waA said ty T1ney, c. j., In
The case In Il Peters, II sle members oi corpo-
ration are to I've egArded Is Individuals carrying
on business IN their corporate names and tnere-
fore entitled to the prTLeGrs Of c.1zens IL mat
urs CT contract. ii Is sesy clear they as 3: inc
ssnie tine lake upon Themselves the ltabLl..es OF
,1t'zsss., anL ec 1, bound Gy taet, contracts
s<. As he very justly aaTA to make
corporation : neFe partnership Ia h;l,!arsr, IL
~hich each stockholder wuu,a hc Liable 10 :ne
wlolc extent VI his property fo1 the debts 0f the
corporation, anil ht might be sued tor them ID uay
htase In when he might happen 10 be foand The
cIA1tae Of Lie constitution referred 10, be says,
Ts.F76 ntv hnJt fFt
.8ch stAte th privileges Of citizens In the several
States, and at the aanae tine to exempt them
from The liabilities which the exercise u such
citizens OF the siate, Tals Woald be 10
~ higher .nd rreaser privileges iasn
laeades II would depnFe eye1y state of al con
trol ever tile extent Of corporate franchises
proper 70 u Esnhsed IN the State, and cotpors-
uuus ould liz chartered IN one 10 carry IN their
oI.ersttons In nnothet. lie further says when
ever n corporation 1nAkea contzacl 1t Il the con-
tsc1 q legal entity OF the Artificial being
helndlvldual menLers The only rights 1t eau
ctAlu., ar the rights which are given 10 1t 10
that character, and nut thu i2hts whlch belong TO
ltk tnembesp ~ citizens OF = STATE.
These passages settle the CURT In the ccnvlc-
Ton that corporations have NJ st1sxs IN States ~
cif1ets OF tte ftate creating Them, and whea they
. discrimination can be r4Ehttu1ly made bet xeen
r1en and our domestic corporations OF the same
character; thAi, sno1ld he deemed cnod policy
by the Legirlat1rr, tney could BE- taxed, 9th
erE,se butstcned. A. 70 compel them to leave the
State They may he regarded as a seacnt or
nuisance according 70 The ca2r.ce Of The Les-sla-
SENSE ofthat term which can be correctly under
sood In no other sense Than ihSt III which 1t WAS
Understood In common accsplasLon. when the
constitution WIS adopted, ana 1t u universally
p!aine1 by writers on govesn.ncn:, without Al ex-
cept,on- 4 ct,ze1 Is or the g~7As" ho:1o, inh,b-
lting And having certain r,sats IN some sr.te or
ot sns snss aie oe Y u
I'll the o,nes ssa:es, aad is eaiitle1 to
rurv1eV of the contsitunon :. the cuzens u iaose
>.htes, permanently residing therrln, arc entitled
"Hs hts - Of clttzenA They can not vote: they
Are Ineligible to public once, snl cannot b..
r1ecunose administrator Or gnardisna They
era privileges and nghta which their creator has
Inls Lax is noi lax on the persous or properly
nclal being which u taxed, and that tar Il pad
from Its tunik The Immunity claimed Is claimed
on behAT OF the corporation, as sucn, and not III
neha3l ot the individual stockholders, And cannot
The point na1ie shas this Is a sa1, aud not uni
form, and thercforc, uneooetsutlonsl Ia fuly an-
swered hJ the Cases Of The People :. Therebcr
H. H., 81. aud F1remen's Bene7olent Assocla-
uon :. Lonnsbcr-J 81, Ill, sit.
Reeordrf,z Court.
Dominique Dcrpihani :. Francois Be1sihanL
Decree OF divorce On thu groanl Of adultery with
pefsonR unknown. Pxttes werr married AZ Nam
tea, France, February r. 1s:1
NEW tEITA
Samuel P. Carr =, AsAhe1 Pierce md 1ucius S,
Pierce. Case. Damages laid at e ooo.
James Farley '. Stephan BurpA Tre4pass Il rt
a,1AiA Damages lad At 8aOUo witn eupsas In A!t
The plaintiff In this cause charges IN Assault and
battery. He sArA under oath, that defendant as
4anfted him. struck htn down, bit aud nangleu
hS 1acc, bit one OF his fnEcfs and gou2cd his
cye4.
Addle Mcdonald '. Charles Mcdonald. Bili for
divorce. Complainant states that she married de-
ftEdA1t On the 81 day Of Dctober, ls6a, and lived
Etth him as a Kind and lndnlGtnt wife until the
10th day Of jauuatJ last tthree months aud twelve
daJs). She charges him With the commission Of
adultery, naming az his accomp!,ce one Margaret
Wilson, and dating the viontion OF the code mat
rimottal On The 18th tA! Of FehruarJ.
Thomas Me, Jr, Y. Amelia Sye. late Cham
beEA Processing for Divorce It ls alleged In
tie bill that the parties wefc married on tue 1st
Gay Of July. 1881, at the Island OF St Achaeist IN
TIE ALores, Portugal, and that they lived together
unt1l July. 1859, when hn charges that his wife
caruline Aatzv. ADJ ipn Aatr. Bill for dlro,ce.
It Is alleged that the parties we1e married IN this
city on the th day OF August, 1897. 1t u charged
thai The husband has been guilty OF q great
cruelty By beating and hy neR!ectn4 TO furnish
hi. w1fc ni,h ncccss2ry iood a1l clothing Bent
ingn arc specified US Of the l6;n May and 18th June
uom!nIQue BerSlhand :. Francois BeralhAnd.
Bill tor diTorce for alleged deactt,on-