The New York herald., 1869-10-21
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

WARRINGTON, OCT. 20, lSbV.
| No. 16i.-Tne Baltimore ana Ohio Railroad CON-
paRy rs. Euen Z. Harris. Adyn,ntstrdtr1r, Go.-Ths
is writ OF error 10 the Supreme Court OF the Dis
trict OF Columbia. In July. 1865 John o. Harris.
the intestate or the defendant In er0r brought suit
In the Supreme Court OF the District against the
railroad company 10 recover damages for injuries
sustained by him in consequence OF q collision
between two trains OF the road, one OF which he
was passenger. near Warrington, West Va, IN
october, 1854. The company pleaded to the juris-
diotion OF the court claiming not TO he liable
to suit In the District and demurred to the
PLAINTIFFS replication to the plea. The demurrer
was sustained at special term, but upon appeal to
she general term the judgment was reversed and
the company were directed to answer, which they
dld pleading the general issue. The trial resulted
In favor OF Harris for the sum OF SSS2 SO. Appeal
was again taken to the general term Of the court.
where the judgment was affirmed. The present
writ OF error was then sued out the company con.
tending that the legal entity or person. which exists
by force OF law, can have no existence beyond the
limit Of the State or sovereignty which brings 1t
into life and endnes 1t with Its facilities and powers
Ana 1t Is submitted that II . corporation con have
legal existence out Of the boundaries OF the SOW
erelgnty by which it Is created and must dwell In
the place OF its creation then their corporation
not by possibility be an inhabtant OF thus District
unless 1t can be shown that has been Incorporated
BY law OF Congress operating within the District.
The only relation sustained TO the District by the
company is such as certain acts of Congress have
permitted those acts recitng the fact that the cor
poration was created by the Legislature OF Mary
land. 1t is insisted that It ia not enough that the
corporation shall be able to hold properly in the
District and control IL by the acts of an agent nor ia
enough tnat 1t shall possess certain privileges and
powers within the District which it may exercise by
m tha
theory that 1t Is nonresident upon the theory
that 1t IS resident. The stockholders ana presi-
corporate meeting outside the State OF Maryland;
and It Is impossible that corporation can be found
Capable in in law % Of holding within n the SqSs pis
trlct meeting Of Its officers and corporators
The defendant In error argues that under the Judi
cay act OF 1883 the court OF the District has cOgn
zance OF all cases, in law ana equity between par
ties. both or either OF which shall be resident or
found within 1t. The word ''person" includes q
corporation, an artificial person. such the COM
pany In this case The language OF the charter OF
the company Is recited to show that the company
was resident corporation, and found within the
District at the time OF the service Of process. The
charter granted by Maryland authorizes the con-
structl0n OF road having Two tentni outside the
boundaries OF the State and beyond its jurisdiction
IN execution Of general intention the company
Congress and TO the State OF Virginia Tor authority
to carry into effect the original purpose-the
Of the the road within their separate
statutes Of Virginia show their assent and the cor.
poration accepted the privilege granted. The cor
franchise by the assent OF the sovereign power; a
franchise whicn could exist II the charter of the
company should be repealed by the State of Mary
land; franchise OF which the sovereign power OF
that district cannot deprive 1t, unless by quo
ranto or sclre iacias. The company may sue here
It may exercise here all the powers, fran.
cnises O.. and privileges that It may within
the company is estopped from denying its
actual presence as an ideal person. The corporate
cation necessarily confer the correatiye rights OF
suing aud being sued. If it has the right 10 hold
property the right OF defending and protecting
property by suit Is but an incident to the right OF
ownership. The case Is heard here on the question
OF jurisdiction reserved by an exception taken by
the company to the ruling below. The answer. on
the merits, was that the injuries to the plaintiff were
not in consequence of any want OF care Skill
the part OF the road, its oillcers agents or EN-
plOyes but were owing to an inevitable accident,
caused by the extraordinary pressure OF govern
ment business upon the road In order to supply
General Sheridan with requisite troops, munitions
ana materials OF wer in order TO enable him carry
| on what was known as his Valley campaign the
| fall OF 1864. Messrs. Bradley and Buchanan for
| plaintiff in error; T. ]. d. Fuller and W. ID. Davdge
| Tor defendant in error
| c. Hardness ana Othey.s.-This Is another appeal
from the Supreme Court OF the District The appeal
grows out OF bli In chancery filed by the appel
PENDANTS, TO declare fraudulent and void voluntary
conveyance MADE by Nye to darkness, trustee for
the benefit OF Nye's wife and children. who made
defendants. while he was largely indebted at the
time TO complainant. The complainant and defend
ant had many transactions the loan OF money to
The defendant and to secure the payment OF which
the defendant made several assignments OF various
claims he had against Congress for services per-
formed, the defendant contendng tnat those assign
ments were made in payment and satisfaction
Of the indebtedness, and the complainant
to the original Indebtedness was set up
In answer. Judgment below for the defend
purely personal and Is not available to persons oc
cupyng the position OF bona tide purchasers, for
tlves.. The case upon the other points turns upon
questions OF fact to be decided by the evidence in
the case. W: s. Cox and $. L. Phillips for appel
liant, Joseph H. Bradley for appellee
No. 159.-Wfndna A,drich 20 al rs. the Eina IN
s,uunce CO,apany. Error 10 The Neac York court OF
ApDedis.-The plaintiffs in error in February 1856
conveyed to one Jacobs the whole OF tie schooner
Stella and he, on the same day, executed mort
gage on her to secure part OF the purchase money.
She was, at the time OF the mortgage, and before
regularly enrolled and licensed vessel and the
same time, and up to the time OF commencement OF
ports and places IN different States and Territories
OF the United States, upon the Western lakes and
waters connecting them. AT the date Of the mort
gage the schooner was lying port, at Chicago
where her owner resided. On the LIST OF March,
1856, she was insured by the defendant In error at
the request Of Jacobs, and his promssory note was
taken for the premium and on the 22d OF March per-
mission was given to the assured to assign to the
paintlns in error the policy OF Insurance. and 1t
endorsed on the policy mat the assignment was
made to secure. IN case OF loss Of the
amount OF the mortgage In December OF the
year the schooner being at the port OF Buffalo,
was attached the suit OF the defendant in error
the property OF Jacobs nonresident TO recover
the amount OF the premium note made for the
insurance. Upon this statement OF facts the In
surace Company claimed that the mortgage OF the
plaintiffs in could not be up against the
attachment, but was void as against It, ana that
they We're entitled TO Judgment, declaring the lien
OF the attachment to ne paramount TO that or the
mortgage and upon the facts stated an amcane
suit was instituted under the STATUTE which was
tried IN the superior Court OF Bufralo, and resulted
In favor OF the company, sustaining their attach
ment lien. Upon appeal to the General Term OF
the Court the Judgment was affirmed; and
again an appeal to the Court OF Appeals,
the State courts appearing to have concurred
In the view that the schooner was O domestic
vessel belonging within tho limits or the
State OF Illinois, and subject to her sta
tuses. which were made to control the decision.
The planfs In error insist here that mortgage
executed to secure part OF the purchase money OF
enrolled and licensed vessel under the laws OF
the United States aud duly recorded according to