New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-09-24
THE COURTS.

THE MEROHANTs' UNION EXPRESS COMPANY
JURIsDICIlON OF STATE AND FEDERAL COU RIS
In the Supreme Court, Eighth District, yes
ercay before fun Bench, in the suit OF william g. Far
co. "a President OF the American Merchants Union Ex
press Company appellant, against James IL McVickey,
reapondent an opinion delivered by Judge Lannon'S
Two auestions are made I'm this The plaintiff
clnris that This PcOn u not removable from TIE state
Cont INTO the CuJut Court Of the United states under
the act o Congress OF 1852 or the act Of 1901 Inc deiGld
ant the contrary insists that the canse IL removable
the order Of the Special Term OF this Court stay
Ing ne piiutus pf"ccelg9 anu senns ,o C'se 70 iie
Circuit Court is not an nppcaable order 10 Il not as
puted that all the formaes necessary to hG removal
have been complied with by tho defendant the case IS
that falls within The provisions OF either act OF Con
ores referred to- The defendant is citizen Of the State
OF Illinois. the plainiln y citizen OF the state OF
New York II the stockholders composing the American
Merchants Union Express Company are To be regarded
the real plainn and they are either IN faet or by
construction OF law CITIZENS o, We ntAte OF lorE
made William y Fargo is himself ciilzen OF the state
OF Ncw-Hork II the suit be his the action in u remoy-
able; n the Company the shareholders who compose
II be the real PLAINTIFF by the authorized and legal style
uses whether those individuals represented by
lie In this action Ivy virtue of the statutes OF this state
nrts 10 be treated AS citizens of the State OF NewYork
MS question arises under the Constitution aud the laws
the tpited s;atcs aud Tor It's and final determine
on We look the authoritative arbter Of all such gues
ons--the Supreme Court OF the United states. That
nat for all purposes OF the Jurisdiction Of the Federal
Onrts. the Stockholders who compose the corporate
Il State. 81 be treated citizens OF that state. and
estopped, from denying that they arc citizens
the State whose laws alone empower them TO appear
I'm the Courts Of Justice by the name OF their legal chris
tenng under the state laws Neither In the Constitution
the United States In the acts OF Congress referred
Import employed connection with the subject under
confederation the term used Is Citzen Controversies
Section ~ II suit be commenced in any state
Court by citizen OF the state in which The sun brought
at L. TO- Act Of 1867, u Stat at L. $50 the same reason
10 iafn M AM
composing each, though mulutudlous In number and
~ tho state laws under which they appear by a tict
tons designation. They arc legazed Tor lti-
endowed with the faculty ofsung and being sued by
the and style conferred upon them by state law
eg thousand persons citizens OF and resident in various
States Including both the States OF NewYork and Hi.
s5S G c Dsw g9 by the am used IN
this action; and this new faculty OF acting aud appear
York chap Sss statute OF 1879 IA to being sued
State statute they stand in the Same predicament as II
they were in ali respects perfect eorp9aon created by
ipuudo OF shareholders the legal capacity to go into
Court, whether rs plaintiffs or defendants by name
Furnished for that purpose under the state law In ths
respect they the same corporate body Whether
they he corporate body associate body Joint stock
may DO known the reason why they are treated for the
purposes Of Federal Jurisdiction citizens OF the state
ho@ to be and appear by one O Name and style
Tribunals 1HsGe hGP h APPLY ~ TO , ST9Ty
faculty OF suing and being sued by the new name which
under such statutory provisions represents the entire
body Of shareholders In this parcu lar party gant
a corporate body and an associate body identical
The reasoning that applies 10 applies 10 tho cher,
and that reasoning will be ut large In Marshall agt
The Baltimore aud Ohio Railroad Co., 6 How. U. 8 Rep.
S25 10 S29 and see Coyngton Draw Br Co agt Sheperd
Vt al, 20 How IT, 8. r. 1888. In the first cited the
grounds for the construction of tho Federal
and Laws are given with great force 10 How. u g. Il.
32C. Mr.. Justice Gner delivering the opinion OF the
Court says Now Il this DO right or privilege guaran.
teed by the Constitution TO citizens OF one state IN their
controversies with citizens OF another II Is plain that 1t
cannot be taken away from the plaintiff by any legsa.
ton OF the State In which tho defendant resides. II A,
T. and c. with other dormant and secret partners, be
powered TO act by their representatives. TO sue to be
sued in collective or corporate NAME their enjoyment
OF these privileges granted by state authority
cannot nullify this important right conferred on
those who contract with them. again p 32l) Tho neces
ses and convonlences OF trade and business require
that such associates and stockholders should
act by representation and have the faculty or contract
ing suing and being sued IN fictitious or collective
maine But these Important faculties confeNed ON them
by State legislation for their own convenience cannot be
welded TO deprive others of acknowledged rights.
IL Is not reasonable that those who deal with such per
sons should be deprived OF valuable privilege by
syllogsm, rather sophsm which deals subtly with
words and names without regard 10 the things persons
they used to represent Nor Ia IL reasonable that
representatives or numerous and unknown and ever
changing associates should be permitted TO aege tho
different citizenship OF moro of those stockholders
IN order ~ defeat the plaintiffs privilege VIII be seen
10 the extracts given and more fully In tho opinion ut
large, that the whole force OF the reasoning applies to
any aggregate body OF shareholders authorized by State
law Sue and DO sued by their collective name or the
name given them D1 Tor soas Parpoi ,Ss SarnoS p
Judge AN act OF incorporation ana corporate
name are necessary TO enable the iepresohta,tNes
OF association to sue and be sued ana IL Is
for this that reference is often made To corpo
ratons In this and other bearing upon the question
association enabled TO sue and be sued without the
act OF incorporation the corporate name Du ny lts
equivalent legal association ana egtima.o statutory
name By this name the whole collective body OF share
holders represented IN tho Courts The name repro