The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1881-11-10
An Important Decision,

AL O0ClS1On..
THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO COMPANY CANNOT
BE SUED IN THE VIRGINIA STATE COURTS
EXCEPT BY CONSENT.
WASHINGTON, Oct 31.-In the Supreme
Court of the United States to-day Chief Jus
tice Waite delivered the opinion of the court
in the case of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail
road Co., plaintiff in error, VS.. George W.
Koontz, administrator, and same plaintiff in
error VS.. Monroe Funkhouser, administrator,
in error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of
Virginia. These suits were brought in State
court of Virginia, under statute of that
State, to recover from the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company damages for the death of
sundry persons named in the respective bills,
who were killed in an accident on the Wash
ington and Virginia Midland and Great South
ern RAILROAD, which road was at that time
leased and operated by the Baltimore and
Ohio Company. The plaintiff in error filed a
a petition for the removal of the cases from
the State to the federal courts on the ground
that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Compa-
ny was a corporation of Maryland, while the
complainants were all citizens of Virginia
The State court refused to permit the removal,
for the assigned reason that the Baltimore and
Ohio Company, by leasing the Virginia Mid
land Road became corporation OF the State
of Virginia and could properly be sued in the
courts of that State. The question here pre-
sented is whether by taking a lease of the
road, Virginia corporation, the Baltimore
and Ohio Company, being citizen of Mary
land. made itself also citizen OF Virginia for
all purposes connected with the use of the
leased property This court holds that the
rights OF corporations outside the States under
the authority of which they were created de-
pend primarily on their charters. If their
charfprS allow it thew m pyproiCp their char
tered privileges, and carry on their chartered
business in any other State which by express
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 con-
dtions on its recognition as it chooses, not in
consistent with the constitution and laws of
the United States. If they are recognized and
permitted to do business without limitation
express or implied. they carry with them
wherever they 60 all their chartered rights,
and may claim all their chartered privileges
which can be used away from their legal home
By doing business away from their legal resi-
dence, which is at their principal place of
business within the State that brought them
into existence, they do not challenge their
citizenship, but simply extend tn. field of
their operations. They reside at home, but do
business abroad.
This court therefore does not hesitate to say,
with all due respect for the Court of Appeals
of Virginia, that the Baltimore and Ohio Rail
road Company, by taking lease from the Vir-
ginia corporation, with the unconditional as
sent of the State of Virginia, of a railroad
which could only be operated by the use in
Virginia of the corporate franchises of the
lessor, did not make itself a citizen of Vir-
ginia, or part with any of the rights it had as
citizen of Maryland under the constitution
and laws of the United States. The Balti-
more and Ohio Railroad therefore was entitled
to have these cases removed to the federal
courts, and the refusal of the State court to
permit such removal was an error. The judg-
ment of the Court of Appeals in each of the
cases is reversed, and the cases are remanded to
the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
with directions to reverse the judgments of
the Circuit Court of the county and transmit
the cases to that court with instructions to va
cate all orders and judgments made or entered
in said cases subsequent to the filing of the
several petitions for removal, and proceed no
further therein unless its jurisdiction be re-
stored by the action of the Circuit Court of
the United States of this court