The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1894-09-22

association created and existing, under
the laws OF Michigan. OF, In other words,
corporation organized under the laws
of that state. 1t Is insisted, In behalf Of
Daily that, being such O corporation, IL
Is not citizen OF the United States, and
therefore does not come within the pur-
view Of the fourth section of the adjust
ment act, and cannot avail itself of the
provisions thereof. This objection is
pressed with much insistence, and num-
Der OF decisions are cited to sustain the
contention. An examination OF those
decisions shows that their purport has
been, In each instance, misunderstood
and misconstrued. They only go to the
extent of holding that a corporations not
citizen for all purposes. There Is, how
ever, long line of decisions which hold
that corporation is citizen of the
state wherein 1t has legal existence,
and as such citizen can sue and be sued
In the courts of the United States.
(Railroad company v, Wheeler, Black,
$50; and Santa Clara Co. v. Southern
Pacific X. X. CO., 1lS U. s., 1855, where
the supreme court refused TO hear an
argument on the question: For full
discussion OF the question, reference Is
made to the case of the Louisville X. r.
co. v. Letson q How, 497,) where the
court concludes, p. 55S,-that corpora
tion created by and doing business in u
particular staje Is to be deemed to all
intents and purposes as person,
although an artificial person, an inhabi-
tant OF the same state for the purposes
of Its incorporation, capable Of being
treated as citizen Of that state as much
as Il natural person.
And many other authorities to the
same effect might be cited. AS such
citizens OF tho state they are in contem-
| plation OF law citizens Of the United
States, and entitled to the equal protec-
| ton OF its laws. (MinueaI0lis L. Il. CD,
v. Backwith, 100 U. S., 26.)
The objection, on the ground that the
land company is not citizen, is over
ruled.
| 1t is my opinion, therefore. that the
purchase made by this company is pro-
tectcd by the fourth section Of the ad-
justment act Of 1887.
Under the terms OF that section, the
land company will be entitled to the
lands here in controversy, and should
have a patent issued therefor after the
said railroad grant Is adjusted, and upon
making the necessary formal proof sat
isfactory 10 your office. This being so,
1t would be improper to permit the poss-
ession OF the property, In the meantime,
to be interfered with by entries thereon.
Entertaining these views, your judg-
ment admitting the entry Of Daily is re-
versed, and his application to enter Is
rejected. The papeis In the case are
herewith returned.
Many other points have been presented
In this case and argued with much zeal
and ability, but In view of the conclusions
herein reached, i have not deemed it
necessary to pass upon them, further
than to say that there Is nothing in any
of them which initiates against the
judgment now made.
| When the grant is adjusted and patents
issued to the purchasers in accordance
with the foarth section Of the act of 1887
you will proceed to make demand upon
the railroad company, as therein provd-
ed, and report to this department,
Very respectfully,
HCKE SMITH, secretary.