The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-07-23
COL Hnsdae Says the Courts have Already So Decided r
the Case of Similar Measures.

tlOn or the Eederal court, III IL imperative t
and void. No State legislature can law
fully impose such IL condition in express
terms upon any corporation seeking to DO
business in Il State, nor would the ac-
ceptance of any such condition bind such
corporation, nor can any State legisla-
ture 10y indirection accomplish that which
it cannot do directly. ........
Whatever may be the purpose of the
act, or whether it be valid or invalid, do
its provisions prevent the Southern Rail-
way Company from seeking the jurisdic-
ton of this court! Is it made SO far Il
corporation of the State of South Caro-
lima as to deprive this court of jurisdic-
ton over a suit between it and a citizen
of South Carolina? 1t must first be motto
ed that the act of assembly now under
discussion does not profess to create a
corporation. 1t assumes a corporation
already created and organized under
the authority of some other state
or power. 1t then, after certain formal
tiles are observed, adopts that corpora
tion as a domestic corporation.
"A corporation is the creature of the
State under whose legislation it is form
ed. 1t cannot divest itself of its pater-
nifty, nor can it ever lose it, nor can the
subsequent act of any State or sovereign
change it. On this point the Supreme
court, in Nashua and l.. II. Corporation
VS.. Boston and l.. II. Corp. 1876 u. ).
ut page 372, 10 Sup. CT. 1907, say:
a more satisfactory answer would,
perhaps, have leen that, whatever effect
may be attributed to the legislation OF
Massachusetts in creating new corpor-
alton by the same name with that of the
complainant, or in allowing a union of
its business and property with that of the
complaint. it did not change the
existence of the complainant as COR
poration of New Hampshire, nor its char-
acter as a citizen of that State, tor the
enforcement of its rights of action in the
national courts against citizens of other
States. Indeed, no other State could,
by its legislation, change this character
of that corporation, however great the
rights and privileges bestowed upon it.
/. .e new corporation created by Massa-
ch,lsetts, though bearing the same name,
composed of the same stockholders, and
designed to accomplish the same pur-
poses, is not the same corporation with
the one in New Hampshire. Identity
of name, powers. and purposes, does not
any more than any other statutes, alike
in their language, passed by different leg
islative bodies, can properly be said to
owe their existence to both. To each
statute and to the corporation created by
it. there can be but one legislative parer-
nity.''
The jurisdiction of the circuit courts
of the United States, when based on di-
versity of citizenship, is confined to suits
between citizens of States, and aliens. If
plaintiff or defendant be citizen of q
territory or of the District of Columbia,
jurisdiction will not attach. He must be
a citizen and resident of a State. n cor
poratlon is not citizen within the mean-
ing of the acts of congress. 1T Is a
political being, created by t4le law, and
cannot sustain the character of il citizen.
Curt. Jur. L. s. Cts. 12S. When suit
is brought by a corporation in the United
States Circuit court, based on diversity
of citizenship, the jurisdiction is main
tanned upon the ground that, the corpor-
alton, being a foreign corporation. the
corporators are citizens of another State
than the defendant. Insurance Co. VS..
Boardman, ) Cranch, 81; Bank vs.. Slo-
cumb, II Pet. 0; Bank vs.. Deveaux, .
Cranch, 81. At first this fact had to be
averred and proved. Subsequently the
supreme court held that the court would
presume as a matter of fact that the
corporators of a corporation of another
State were citizens of that State. and no
averment or evidence to the contrary was
admissible, Railroad Co. V. Wheeler, |
Black, 2S6; Railroad Co. VS.. Tugman,
How. 497. This presumption is conclu-
sive. Steamship Co. VS.. Tugman, JOG
L.. S. 11S. / Sup. CT. 50. But the jur-
isdiction depends upon the fact that is
conclusively presumed, that the corpora
tors-are citizens of the State creating the
corporation. So, when the Southern Rail
way Company comes into this court. and
claims jurisdiction. the claim is not based
upon the fact that it is a corporations of
the State of Virginia or a citizen of Vir-
ginia, but upon the fact tina its corpora
tors are citizens of Virginia. Now. when
the State of South Carolina adopts this
corporation of the State of Virginia. and
makes it q domestic corporation, it neith-
er makes the corporation a citizen of this
State, nor can it make the corpOrators OF
the Virginia corporation citizens of South
Carolina. The courts will not do this:
nor will they extend the doctrine that the
corporators of the corporation are indis-
putably citizens of the State creating it.,
so as to presume in like manner that cor
porators of an adopted corporation are
citizens of the State adopting it. Rail
road Co. VS.. James, 161 u. s. $40, 16
Sup. Ct 621.
''In the Circuit Court of Appeals of the
Sixth circuit is a we'll considered case on
this subject. Louisville Trust Co VS..
Louisville, \. a. and c. r. Co. 23 c. G.
A. 37S. Is Fed. 437. The opinion of the
court is delivered by a learned and ac-
curate circuit Judge tTaft) The Louis
vile, New Albany and Chicago Railroad
Company had been Incorporated by the
State of Indiana. Subsequently the
Legislature of Kentucky passed an act.
the first section of which is in these
words:
"'That the Louisville. New Albany
and Chicago Railway Company. cor
poration organized under the laws of
Continued on Third Page)