0 ... W. I. B. CO. V.L. B. II II. 8: BY. CO.
19
woman, who is of the class or race that may be lawfully naturalized under the existing laws, and who marries a citizen of the United States, is such citizen also. Upon this construction of the act, and the assumption that the ;plaintiff is a "free white person," she is a citizen of the United States, and has been ever since her marriage to Leon· ard, and there must bo So finding of feet and law for the defendant accordingly.
0. &
w. 1. R. Co. v. L. S. & M. S. ny. Co. (Bill.)
L. S. &. IJ. S.
ny. Co. v. C. & W. 1. R. Co. ) January 5, 1881.)
(Circuit Court, N. D. IlUnoi8.
L REMOVAL-CONSOLIDATED CoRPORA'rlONB-When a corporation is cre-
ated by the laws of one state and then becomes consolidated with the corporations of other states, by virtue of the laws6f the state of its creation and of' such other states, and then changes its name and is sued by such changed name in a court of the !ltate where it was created by a corporation of the same state, one of the consolidated corporn· tions created by thc law of another state go into such state court and have the cause removed into the federal court.-[ED.
Lawrence, Campbell J: Lawrence, for C. & W. 1. R. Co. Ja8. L. High, Geo. W. Krctzinger, and C. D. Roys, for L. 8. &; M. S. Ry. Co. C. J. Under the general law of the state of Illinois, of November 5, 1849, a corporation was created, called the Northern Indiana & Chicago Railroad Company, to which were given the general of a railroad company by the,act of June 16,18,52. Thatcolllpany, underthe authority of the laws of Illinois and was consolidated with a railroad company of the A consolidation then took place between this consolidated corporation and a. :company created by the of the state of
..
)
';Michigan; and afterwards' there was a consolidation between railroad companies created under the laws of Illirlois, Indi· ana, Michigan, Ohio; Pennsylvania, and NewYorlr, the result {)f which was that a. consolidated railroad company was ere· ated, called the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company, which owns and operates a line of railroad from Buffalo, in the 'state of New York, to Chicago, in the state of Illinois. The property in controversy, being certain real estate in the county of Cook, was conveyed to one of the consolidated corpomtions created between the date of the original corpora-' tion of the state of Illinois, and the consolidated corporation which was the result of the legislation of the different states referred to. On September 13, 1880, the Chicago & West· -ern Indiana Railroad COl;npany, a cOlpomtion 0.1 the state of Illinois, filed its original bill in the superior court of Cook .county against the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Rail. way Company. On November 22, 1880, the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company filed its cross-bill alleging that it was a consolidated corporation composed of different' corporations orglfriized and ch,artered under' the la '\VB 01 ,the states of New, York; Ohio, Indianlli, and Michigan. On November 27,1880, the Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad 'Company filed its answ,er to the cross-billde'dying that the .Lake Shore &. Michigan Southern was a consolidated corporation, as alleged in the cross-bill, but averring that it was a corporation of the state of Illinois, and that it was originally incorporated under the general incorporation law of 1849, and that subsequently it was consolidated with the other corporations heretofore mentioned. On the twentyninth of November, 1880, the Lake Shore & Michigan South-ern Hailway Company filed its petition and bond and affidavit -of local prejudice, in the superior court, alleging that the complainant was a citizen of the state of Illinois, and that the petitioner was a. citizen of the state of New York, and .asking for the removal of the cause to this court. On the same day the Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad Company .filed an answer to said petition, averring that the original
O. &
w.
I;n.'CO;V.L.
S. BY.
bill was filed against the Lake Shore &. :S6uthel'n Hailway, Company as a corporation of the state of' 'Illinois only. The petition alleged the necesskry amount required by the statute as the subject of controversy, and executed the proper bond. Tne state court refused to grant the prayer for removal, and IIr transcript has been takenof the record of the state court, and leave is asked to file it and have the cause docketed in this court, on the ground that it is a casepfoperly removable to this court under the acts 'of congress. ' On the face of the petition the case is removable, l)utlt has been submitted to the court upon the faets as heretofore stated, and the question is whether, when a' corpoxatiml is created by the laws of one state, and then becomes consolidated with the corporations of other states,by virtue- of the la.ws of the state of its creation and"dtlier states,artd'then changes its name and is sued by that /,name in a state court onts creation by a corporation of the same state, one'bf the corporations created by the laws of another' state'can go into the state court and have the cause rerilOvedinto too court. '. :1 !
When the suit was brought in the courtagl:titis:t thil we 'Lake Shore & Michigan must "assume that the corporatldn meant 'Was that\'lteated by the laws of Illinois. The laws of 6thenitlites the corporations of those states had rio force in thestll.te of Illinois, except by virtue of its legislation, 'and therefore:the consolidated corporation of that state became such by the laws of Illinois, and the result of the combined legislation of the several states was that as to Illinois the corporation of this state was the sole representative of the other corporations. It may be said, therefore, that in consequence of the legislation of the various states the corporation of each state became an integral part of the consolidated railroad company between Buffalo and Chicago, whose iuterests were in common, and yet, as regards the respective corporations, each was a legal entity existing by virtue of the laws of the state of its creation. This, I understand, is the effect of the de-
22
Ji'lmEIU.L BBPORTER.
cisions of the court of the United States upon this subject. It is claimed, on the part of the original defendant, that this. case is like that of The St. Louis, Alton J; Terre Haute R. Co. v. The Indianapolis J; St. Louis R. Co. 12 Leg. News, 73, and therefore that case,in principle, decides this, because it was there held that the federal court had jurisdiction. That was an original bill filed by a corporation of the state of lllinois against corporations of Indiana and Pennsylvania, the Indiana corporations being consolidated, it is true, with a corporation of Illinois, the plaintiff in the suit. This is not a su.it brought by a New York corporation, an integral part of this consolidated company, against an Illinois corporation, but it is a suit brought by an Illinois corporation against another Illinois corporation, an integral part of a consolidated company of which the New York corporation also constitutes a part. It may be that where there is a consolidation under the laws of different states of the corporations of those states operating a railroad, that one of the corporations can file a bill in equity in the federal court for the protection, and maintenance of its own interests against another corporation, part of the consolidated company, and created bya different state from that of the plaintiff. But that is nO,t this case. It cannot be said that this is a controversy whoUy between citizens of different states, because it is a controversy between two citizens of Illinois, each being a corporation of Illinois, and therefore it is a controversy in part only between the corporation plaintiff and the corpora. tion defendant that seeks the removal of the cause. Neither is this case like that of The Northwestern Ry. Co. v. The Chicago J; Pacific R. Co. 7 Leg. News, 57, where the plaintiff, although consolidated with a corporation of Illinois, sued afj a corporation of Wisconsin. The principle contended for, as I nnderstand, by the defendant in the original suit, amounts to this: That, because a person is sued in a state court by a citizen of that state, and a citizen of another state is jointly interested with tho
DERGER V. COlU'RS OF DOUGLAS OOUNTY.
28
defendant in the subject of 'controversy on which the suit is bronght, the non-resident citizen has the right togo into the state court and ask for the removal of the cause into the fed· eral court. I do not think that principle can be maintained, and, therefore, I shall refuse to take jurisdiction of this case.
BERGER
v.
COUNTY COM'RS OJ' DOUGLAB COUN'rY.
(Circuit Court, D. Nebrask(J.
November, 1880.)