Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1873-05-27

Court that these acts did not create new corr
poration in Virginia, but only enabled the
Maryland corporation to exercise its facilities
in that State. They were held not TO have
altered the citizenship of the company, in
Maryland, but to have given wider SPHERE
to its operations by allowing the construction
of its works in Virginia. This license-as
the court terms twas subject to conditions,
and its acceptance involved certain conse>
quences, among which was, that it became
subject to suit in Virginia which the court
states was "clearly implied in the license, aud
the company by constructing its road then
Fin Virginiaj assented to it." The Supreme
Court further repeated and adopted, with ap-
proval, the language in 18th Grattan which
declares that: alt would be startling promo
sltion if in all such cases citizens of Vir-
ginia, and others, should be denied all remedy
in her courts for causes of action arising un-
der contracts and acts, entered into or done,
within her territory. and should be turned
over to the courts and laws of a sister State to
seek redress" And in illustration. of the
force of this language, Judge Swayne, who
delivered the opinion of the court, added:
eff these considerations do not apply to
ali such eases, however large or small the
cause ofaction there could be
no legal redress short of the company in
another State. In many instances the cost Of
the remedy would have largely exceeded the
value of its fruits: In suits local in their
character y x there. could be no re-
lief Tho result would be, to a large extent.
Immunity from all legal responsibility
It follows, then, from the authority of this
case, sustained as it is by reasoning too strong
and conclusive to be successfully resisted, that
by virtue of its acceptance, in its corporate
capacity. of the license granted by Virginia,
the B. 20. r. r. Co. is amenable to citizens
of West Virginia, in the Courts of the State.
for all causes of action arising Syoon contracts
and acts entered into and done ,oittin the ter.
ritory Of the State. howecer large or small
the cause Of action may he. Indeed, that
company has uniformly accepted the iuris-
diction of our courts in all such cases. It has
not asserted, or If ever asserted has long since
abandoned, tho claim that citizens of Vir-
ginia should be driven to the courts and laws
OF Maryland to seek their redress against il.
In other words, by accepting the license and
grant Of privilege from Virginia it surren-
dered and abandoned every right to object to
the jurisdiction of our courts, which was in
cident to, or derived from, it's citizenship in
Maryland. This is indisputably true of every
action which does not involve matters of dis
rute exceeding $780, But is it less true of
cases whore the amount in volred exceeds that
sum: Or, to present the question in another
form: II in nny action upon rontrnct, or in
tort, involving the sum of S499-the de-
fendant admits the jurisdiction of this Court
because of the waiver and surrender to which
| have referred, upon what principle can it
assert the rights of foreign citizenship in a
case involving S50l, and demand it's removal
to the U. s. Court? It is true that the iu.
rsdiction of that court is confined tn amounts
exceeding $500 1t is also admitted that for
all purposes of Federal jurisdiction a corro-
ration will be regarded citizen of tho
State where it was created. But these adj
missi ons can not affect the soundness of the
proposition that foreign corporation may ir>
revocahly surrender its right to require that
all actions seeking redress against it, shall be
brought in the State of which it is citizen
or shall he prosecuted in the Federal Court,
when within its Jurisdiction.
IF the defendant, therefore, has waived
these rights incident to its foreign citizenship.
in consideration of the license and privileges
granted to it, and has accepted the jurisdic>
tion of the courts Of the State, in all cases
arising from its contracts and acts within onr
territory, can Limitation be placed upon that
waiver? BY what authority, are its extent
and effect to be confined to cases which in
volve less than $500? This waiver or sur
render is declared by the Supreme Court to
have been clearly implied, and absolutely as
sented to bv the defendants acceptance of
the license from Virginia. No exception to
all the consequences of this Implication is sug-
gested in the opinion which I have quoted
for, Judge swayne distinctly applies the oon-
alterations. SO strongly presented by Judge
Allen, to all cases-"however large or small
the cause of action :" Nor can it be pre-
tended that the Company, at the time of its
acceptance Of the privileges conferred by the
Virginia enabling acts, qualified or limited its
assent to all the implied consequences of that
#cceptance-the most important of which is
its submission to the Jurisdiction of our courts
Q"oad all causes of action resulting from its
acts and contracts in this State
1T seems unnecessary TO pursue this Discus
sion further. I think that enough has been
said TO snstain the following conclusions:
]. That although the defendant is Mary
land corporation and, as such, citizen of
that State for the purposes of Jurisdiction,
that it was entirely competent to waive all the
rights and incidents Of that tsta.us-includipe
the right of removal to the Federal Court
and make itself liable to the Jurisdiction of
another State, in regard to all causes of action
arising within that State
2. That the defendant, By accepting the
privileges granted by the enabling acts of
Virginia, accepted the consequence which
made it liable to be sued in the Courts ofvf>
ginia for causes of action arising within their
Jurisdiction that this acceptance was un,
qualified and, therefore, embraces all such
causes of action, whether the amounts they
involve be large or small, or within or below
the Jurisdiction of the U. s. Courts; that the
State of West Virginia has succeeded, in all
respects. to the relations, WHICH existed be-
tween the defendant and the State of Vir-
g'nia; and. consequently, that all causes of
action arising from the contracts and acts of
the defendant, in the territory of West vir-
giuia, are within the jurisdiction of the State
Courts without destruction, Limitation or ex-
ception because of the amounts which may be