National Republican., 1881-11-01
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Two Important DecI.ions Made Yesterday
from the virginia Courts.


In the Supreme Court of the United states yester.
day q. l.. Hail. Of New orleans, In. John II. Bssell,
OF Detroit, and George l.. Douglass were admitted to
the bar. Decisions rendered In several cases,
among which were the following;
No. . The United States, plaintiff In error, vs..
George w Jackson, Edward j. Underwood, ct al. In
error TO the Trcnt Court Of the United states @ 2t
brought by the United states against the suretles on
described in the bond simply rs collector Of taxes:
The court below held that the bond was absolutely
particular 'e Collection district he Tie principal Jackson
was collector aud because this uncertainty Of descrip
admissible evidence. This court holds that the bond
would not necessarily be void for the reason above
declaration that Jackson had eyer been appointed
tNined, and the Judgment OF the court below must be
| affirmed opinion by Mr.. Justice Miller.
plaintiff in error, VS.. George w Koontz, adminisra
Tor Nos 800 and 7SS The same piaintlfT in error VS.
supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. These suits
s brought % f n state court 81 virginia s Under
and Ohio Railroad Company damages for the death
who were Killed In an accident ON tie Washing,
ton virginia Midland and Great southern lIallroad
which rOnd was Mt that time leased and operated by
the baltimore and Ohio Company The plaintiff in
error nled petition for the removal Of the cases
that Il was corporation Of MeryIand while the com.
plalnans We're all citizens Of Virginia. The state
reason that ne, baltimore and Ohio Com;
prany by leasing the Wirsin!" h Midland siH,a
of Virginia and could properly be sued in the courts
ofthat state The question here presented whether
| ton, the Baltimore and Ohio Company, being q
citizen of Maryland, made itself also citizen OF
the leased property. This court holds IN an elaborate
opinion by ChletJustce Waite, that the tights OF
corporations outside the states under the authority Of
which they were created depend primarily on their
charters If their charters allow II they may exer-
else their chartered privileges and carry on their
chartered business In any other state which by cx-
press grant or by implication permits them to do so.
| They have no absolute right of recognition in any
other state than their own, and the state which
| recognizes them can impose such conditions on
| Its recognition ns II chooses not inconsistent
| with the Constitution and laws, of the
to do business without limitation. expressed or inl-
piled, they carry with thom wherever they all their
chartered rights aud may claim all Of their chartered
privileges which can be used away from their legal
home. by doing business away from their legal resi-
| dencc, which is at their principal place of bust
ness Within the state that brought them into eN.
istcncc, they do not change their citizenship, but
tions. They reside at home, bat do business
say with all dwe respect for the Court of Appeals of
Virginia, that the Baltimore aud ohio ltnlrOad Com
| ton, with the unconditional assent OF the
state of Virginia, of u railroad which could only
franchises of The lessor, did not make itself citizen
i had as citizen of Maryland under
| The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company there
fore was entitled to have these cnses removed to the
Federal courts and the refusal Of the state court To
the Court of Appeals In each Of the cases is reversed
and the cases are reminded to the supreme touri
Judgments of the Circuit Court of the county, and
transmit the cases to that court with Instructions 70
said cases subsequent to the filing Of the several peti
tions for removal, and proceed no further therein
unless It's jurisdiction be restored by the action of tht
Circuit Court ofthe United states or this court Opn
ion by ChlefJustCc Waite.