Daily Republican., 1885-11-30
important Decision.
THzE 0PIHION OF THE COURr ON
the APPLICATION or TmE
BALTIMORE T. OHIO

THE OPINION OF THE COURT ON
TnE APPLICATION or THE
BALTIMORE q OHIO
FOR A N AN D A N U S.
The following important decision
was delivered In the Superior Court laet
Saturday by Chief Justice ComeRys on
the application Of the Baltimore q Ohio
Telegraph Company, through Lsvi Q.
Bird, Esq, for rule on the Delaware
q Atlantic Telephone Company to show
cause why writ OF mandamus should
not be issued compelling 1t to place a
. telephone instrument In the office Of
the Baltimore & Ohio telegraph Office
in this city.
In this case we are asked to decide.
upon rule TO show cause, the question
whether the plaintiff In the rule Is on
Titled 70 ask for II, and II he be, whether
he has shown such facts, II true, would
Justify the court In granting 1t. Ap
parently no more important subject has
arisen for long time. for decision In
this State, than that which the papers
and the argument present, of the right
Ola foreign corporation TO ask for q
maudamus TO facilitate II in this State,
of the powers conferred upon It in the
state OF its creation. Its Importance
Ia greatly magnified because Of q ques.
tion which, but for the sufticiency for
tho purposes of decision Of others pre
sented, we should be bound TO consider
and pass upon. The case before us does
not, however, require that We should
go into the subject at any. length, and
therefore We will pass 1t.
The difficulty In dealing with the
application TO make the rule absolute,
70 that Of seeing upon what IL oan be
based. As we conceive, none has been
shown TO us. Supposing, for the mere
sake OF the argument, however, that
. foreign corporation can have any
existence, or capacity, In this State, to
be recognized by its courts, without
legislative enactment, how can 1t be
claimed that the plaintiff In this case
has such, seeing that It's operations are
expressly confined 10 the territorial
limits OF Maryland, whose creation the
cooperation Ia? Gases have been present.
ed which decide that where, by the
terms OF tbe act OF Incorporation, or,
the general law Of State, . corporate
where, the Statey, by comity--that is,
gracious favor, extended also by other
States TO their creations--will allow II
so exercise, to q reasonable extent, Its
powers within them.
That Ia TO say, they will allow It r.
seek redress In their courts for breacbe.
OF contract, for example. But this lie,
ex.gratia, merely. 1t can
not, In any sense, be claimed as right
The States are independent, and can
open their courts or not, to foreigners,
or foreign Chat Is NJ applied TO them
corporations. These latter being mere
artificial bodies, aud not personal In q
sense 70 entitle them TO be treatsd, In u
question kush as this, as citizeDs ol
another State, the usage Of comfy
which prevails, does not necessarily,
or appropriately, exist for them. 1t II
by the comfy Of q couutry, Its cour-
tesy % another country, that a citizen
or subject of the latter IL allowed TO use
Its judicial process.
1t Is true that 10 far as citizens of any
State OF the United States are concern
cd, there ia secured 20 them, by tb,
Federal constitution, the same rights
privileges and immunities which citi
zsns, AZ such, enjoy In their respective
States. This Is by virtue Of, and I,
consolidate their nationality (; Int thu
provision Is not for corporateV bodiel
which are citizens "a no case except fol
redress Of grievances In the courts Of tn,
union. In them they are srch by Ju
dicial construction. We're corporat'
bodies entitled to the same recognitioL
as citizens, then all constitutional re
straint upon their creation would o'
Inugatory. The provision OF our Owl
constitution which requires vote o.
two thirds OF each branch OF the legis
lature TO pass u corporate acs, could b
rendered q dead letter by the courts,
comfy could clothe foreign creation
with corporate functions here. This
conclusive OF the view that, In thi
State at least, to give foreign corpora
Ition the right to demand q mandam IL
TO enable II to uss its foreign franchises
something more 10 needed to insur
complisnce than the mere invocation Q
Icomtty.
But tho invoked action of comit
would be misapplied In case lik'
that before us--ofa q corporation express
Ily limited, by its own charter, 70 th
transaction of business within the limit
of the State OF Mary land. tits concei,
able that corporate body. unrestricte
to State territory, and created TO pursu
q business which might be followed any
where, should, where there is no constl
Itutional or legal impediment In the wa,
be recognized By q State, and allowed |
act In IL by courtesy but where one
Iex pressly, 40 In this case, confined
1.-The jurisdiction of its birth in its ope
ations, il Is not conceivable that IL tshoul
be allowed to act beyond II. In the nj
Iture of its being, II cannot project itsel
Iby any mere recognition Of u court I'M
Ianother jurisdiction and act thereto
liz would have nothing to show In just
location. To adopt it in any way
Isnothe. Stae, would be in fact want
kcomity on the part of such State
Iclothipg 1t with o function which va
withheld from 1t by the act which or
Ia;ed It.
Without going any further into th
an biec,, We give a. our Judgment thi
1.-The motion In this case ought TO prevail
and we therefore order that the rule
discharged.
Il In ans weY to . suggestion by Mr. Biz
Chief Justice Comegys stated that q
Iteie< <raph c0mpany's remedy would
| To procure charter from the Leglsl
tufe, which would give IL the prop
This opinion was ooncurred in by A
sociate Justices W0otten and Houston
From almost every section of Il
State come reports Of q general In
Inrovemeur OF the health Of our peopl
ldue no Doubt to the influence OF ID