*1 Michigan Railroad Co. v. Indiana Railroad Northern Co. Company, Railroad Indiana The Northern Board the of Commissioners Western Division of the Mississippi The v. Railroad, and Appellants, Buffalo Company. Michigan Michigan Michigan, agree- established made an The Company, and with the New Salem Railroad ment established Albany Company, Indiana, and the former would build work a road in the under charier Indiana, of the latter. established in Indiana, Another also called Northern Indiana Railroad company, right claiming an exclusive to that of filed a bill in the Indiana, Company, Circuit part Michigan, against Court of the United for tho District of States, Michi- injunction gan praying an of the construction road under company, prevent agreement. the above The Court had over a case. Circuit such where, subject-matter The lies the limits of the controversy beyond district, and court cannot reach the locus process quo. rights tho New are involved in Moreover, the con- Albany Company seriously Congress, and made providing suit. The act of they parties troversy, non-joinder for the who are not inhabitants of the does not district, apply case as tho present. an This from the Circuit Court appeal United for the States, District court of Michigan, sitting equity. The were below. appellants complainants cor- They created business in, porations by, doing Indiana, to make and use a prior claiming railroad from to west across the northern of Indiana. running east The defendants were incorporated by Michigan, and had a road from Detroit City. Being road desirous continue round southern end of Lake entered into for this agreement, Michigan, purpose, incorporated company, called and Salem Railroad filed appellants bill in domicil of Central Rail- for an road them injunction from Company, praying prevent the said lands said upon using entering complainants, the same, from from excavating hinder- grading upon from their ing completing using same and from the railroad exclusively, constructing using 'which the defendants laid located, out, railroad or near Or upon where the line violation the same and from doing any thing the exclusive complainants. To this bill the defendants demurred, and the Circuit dismissed costs. bill, ' The to this court. complainants appealed Mr. Bronson, for the Mr. argued appellants, Priiyn Jay, Mr. appellees.
[*] Bailroad’
Central Bailroad
heads,
out
several
branched
into
arguments
notice
jurisdic-
those
necessary
tion,
bearing
want
parties.
locality
proper
arising
*2
for
Bronson,
Mr.
appellants.
The
and
is
Sixth
New
Salem
not
Point.
Albany
Company
a necessary party.
done,
do,
and
the
The defendants
threaten
First.
is a
or
It
tort
our
trespass
of which we complain.
wrong,
answerable,
are
whoever
the
for which
wrongdoers
rights,
them. No one
behind
stand behind
'standing
trespasser,
them,
be the relation between
whatever
that he must be
has
right
say
amade
when the
seeks
person injured
party,
We
the
redress
demand
transgressor.
nothing
against
against
Albany
Company.
Watts,
and
v.
Salem
Kerr
the New
6
550.
Wheat.
and Salem
was made
If the New Albany
party,
Company
and
defendants,
between
that company
rights existing
be,
adjusted
those
could
in this
whatever
rights may
suit.
the New
The relation between
and Salem
Albany
Secorid.
is that
and
defendants
grantor
grantee;
and
Company
to make
never
suit
grantor
party
is
necessary
and.
actions,
in real
where the
except
grantee
grantee,
against
vouches the
'warranty.
grantor
Salem
has sold its franchise,
The
and
New
Company
Albany
defendants,
road,
and
far
relates
question,
so
is
colorable.
repurchase
the pretended
is no
because there is no debt or obli
There
mortgage,
(1.)
Alexander,
Act of “ where, in 1. That suit at law or in Sect. com- any equity, court of the United States, menced in defendants, there shall be several any or one more of whom not be shall inhabitants any within, the district of, or found where the suit is or brought, thereto, it shall be lawful for shall voluntarily appear to entertain the trial jurisdiction, proceed suit, of it; betwefen the who be adjudication perly shall not parties pro- before or decree rendered therein judgment conclude or preclude served parties regularly or answer; process, not-voluntarily appearing who are not inhabitants, or found non-joinder within' of district, shall constitute no matter of abatement or other to said suit.” objection Equity,
Rules Practice .Court States, United of of adopted January Term, 1842. 22. If Rule other than any those person, named as defend- ants in the shall to he or appear ies necessary proper pa bill shall aver thereto, the reason are not made why they them to. be without showing parties, by of the' jurisdiction be court, or that cannot without joined ousting juris- diction of the court as to the other parties.” 1 Howard, 48. 236 Michigan v. made in the bill, averment has been Albany The proper showing and Salem without the the New Company juris- cannot joined diction ousting of the court. Ketchum v. Farmers Loan and Trust Culbertson v. Wabash McLean, 1; 4 Company, Company, Navigation Id. 544. Stafford, Howard, 47. Union Bank of Louisiana v. 12 Rule Canal and
327, New Orleans 341-3; v. Banking Company Stafford, 343, 346; Rhodes, 131, 141. Id. 11 Id. McCoy The counsel for the As want appellees following points: The Circuit locality— in the case. Whether the had no jurisdiction Michigan or not, act under the law defendants cause of authority alleged bill local, maintained complaint Cranch, 268; Pl. 1 Atk. 158; 544; in Indiana. 6 Chitty, 1 H. 164; 589; 504; 3 Atk. 183; 10 & Vesey, Vesey, Sumn. Bibb, 446; sen. 223; J. 1 Vesey, — defeñdañts contend As to the want proper parties on, even to without the that the case cannot go hearing, of the New Company. presence the case without hearing deciding giving injustice heard, manifest, to be and most an opportunity claims the to construct a so. authority clearly line, to the Illinois railroad from New Albany making Michigan of Lake the termination of the at the head City, the whole Road, and to point, mortgage constructed, constructed, of the road part proposed into wherewith to build. It has entered to obtain money to advance arrangement construct, as the construct, agent money enough of the road west that to take Michigan City, company, said stock, in addition thereto $500,000 money fifth south and four- fifths north of La- one is to expended, and for the and south of Michigan City, punctual pay- fayette ment of stock it holds as absolute subscriptions security line road from to the Illinois all the and City complete *4 all to declare forfeited and with the null running; in case of its default Michigan rights its of stock. It has its entire mortgaged subscriptions paying of road from line New City, upon Albany Michigan which are thereof, amounts, has loans to credit obtained large distance. It is r.oad its entire through rapidly completing a market to of about million a in the dispose money still half of unsold the work, bonds to complete entirely mortgage far, in the State of Indiana. the most by important, Michigan merchant, mechanic, from one end of farmer, other, are its stockholders. interests, vast decree of all these this Now, upon must act defendants, make one these if it can directly. charter of the New which is the Albany Company be struck claimed will out is in controversy. powers with the existence. Its arrangements Company void. Its road be declared null and west Michigan City will for $500,000 be existence. Its will struck out security legal Its road south of towards of stock City destroyed. (cid:127) half, than nearly complete more Lafayette complete market, its distance, blotted out. Its credit in whole money and all this in suit sold, ruined, bonds. will be stock and its in a be heard. Is this cannot possible where on, and the com- ? suit court of .And cannot go yet equity results. all these disastrous succeed, without They plainants and of the are the results of the decree direct sought, allegations and Salem Com- the New bill; rights Albany are all controversy, pany themselves, exercise none claim none except Company are Salem as the New empowered Albany .them. grant Com- welfare, fate, That nay, interests, entire stocks, bonds, its depends upon pany, case doubt. Can this there can go question, ? it a decision be had Shall which company it, party making make a when, here, if and a might showing destroy may of? defendants know There nothing defence which present of thus to show the acting. injustice needs nothing “ runs the rttle of law here All equity justice. But either are to be made or interested, beneficially, subject- legally persons matter tiffs it, either as suit, plain- parties so decree shall be made, complete court will all. this means the make shall bind which them By future and make decree to litigation, co'mplete prevent is done either to the certain that no injustice parties perfectly are interested or to others who subject-matter before it decree, otherwise view partial might grounded upon are before the real merits. When all parties all seen, but it not where the con- the whole case may interests out brought pleadings flicting 74, sections and 75. thereto.” Story’s p. Pleadings, parties even are not to a If the though proper parties decree, suit, but the there be a it will bind none yet that all the evils of fruitless litigation so inadequate suit, to the original visited successful party leaving *5 238 Co. v. Indiana Eailroad Eailroad Co.
Northern to future question title his still open controversy.” Story, 75.§ Here, would the New be bound. Albany. Company npt courts, seek to enforce would, in its own under the rights the defendants. State courts contracts with would not be a decree this court bound even the statutes of construing State, the decisions and this to reverse its might compelled own on such a What would be the question. position ? the two in such case companies This discussed also in the cases: fully following McLean, Oliver, Peters, Platt and 202. 305; We are rule, aware there to this exceptions they are all cases where can be done complete justice between before parties prejudice rights interests before it. 77, sections Story’s Pleadings, 191, 81, 83, 89, 94, 96, 154, 192, 193. are not to a because no Agents proper parties interest in the There is one instance, however, subject-matter. and that is where a from a discovery may sought in which officers be joined, may though Judge Story evidently did not think this founded exception upon principle. Story’s 204, 235. Pleadings, § We are of the remarks not unaware which fell from Mr. Baldwin, the case v. Justice in The Camden and Bonaparte there He seems to think Railroad Company. Amboy be sued for a he because an can be agent trespass, impleaded in the Court which the Chancéry, principles upon suits courts act in are the same, two against allowing agents at to cases he reasons cases law There equity. be, an in a multitude be no doubt that of cases, agent could law, at when the not be deter sued his principal and settled in a suit him alone. The equity against mined case United States bears of Osborne analogy in that case no that the decree of this. There'was the court could possibility injuriously operate parties; the railroad the case Bonaparte, company could heard. party, There also differs from That case this many respects. the railroad such relations there between were no subsisting as subsist between the defendants and and its agents, The decree for an Company. interests, such vast and work not cut would through injunction to manifold interests would destruction wide, sweeping also That case from this in this case. 'differs adverse decree a bill to trespass that was enjoin against committing in this: irreparable, and imme- of an be the canse injury, would which TERM, DECEMBER' Railroad avert action the ruin. Here and decisive necessary diate the bill is Here test merely right, is no such legal thing. be tried in an action of It is in truth should ejectment. but to a decision whether the procure trespass, prevent *6 and Salem Railroad legal New Albany it has constructed and laid railroad where it to maintain right down, is it. It now sufficiently operating appears bill had been constructed before the filed. that the road was bill months, had, fact, constructed some passenger It of time. The been run over it for a trains had period long then, to is, an irreparable trespass, controversy prevent of the New to Albany Company, dispute it has been built and in to maintain its where opera- long built; tion, and was so before road of the complainants to it pro- its dispute right mortgage void, null and and null and decree that its asserted are cure rights it held and against securities void; are.all by mortgages road; its and to using enjoin maintaining be heard. It all this without it a chance to would giving a case as if there in such seem in could no need of argument a court of equity. these answer questions say and Salem Com this court ousted if will and do The court cannot is made go justice party. pany and that a reason always unless party, 426; Sumner, should be dismissed. 3 3 the suit Russell why — 3 5. Mason, 181; Swanston, 140 83; Mylne, & aid of 1839 cannot act of Congress complainants did to overthrow the funda- case. That act not intend and de- acts, which court of chancery mental principles of one a suit another. That party termine rights provides that the court shall on with the suit go act against affect simply who shall but the decree shall appear; party that is, who does not the rights party appear; exeTciseits do the court shall where so in interest "of who without prejudice not appear, do 28, of Have not been made Act Feb. parties. 1839, sec..1. funda- at all are does not This change principles'which courts of questions jurisdiction. mental equity upon 66. Peters, See court, and alter order to the universal rule of In change the. should in fundamental the act points, Congress its practice be express, intention do so with irresist- expressed clearness and force. 1 Peters’s Cond. Rep. ible v. Mr. Justice M’LE AN delivered the opinion court. This is an from the Circuit appeal chancery, Court of the District Michigan. The Northern Indiana Railroad and the Board Commissioners for the Western Division of the Buffalo and Railroad, created Mississippi corporations busi- by, doing in, ness the State of Indiana, filed their bill in the Circuit Court, that an act of the of Indiana, dated stating legislature February 6th,. 1835, the Buffalo and incorporated Mississipi That act of the Company. subsequent of Fe- legislature, 6th, 1837, the name of the bruary changed ” that of the Northern Indiana Railroad “ Company; an act of the 8th of 1848, the Board of Commis- February, sioners for the Western Division of the Buffalo and Mississippi Railroad,” were That several acts of the incorporated. legis- lature of Indiana were and en- passed, confirming, amending, the charters franchises of the same larging that corporations; virtue of said laws the enti- severally tled to do and business in the State of perform India, author- ized their said charters. *7 That the Northern Indiána Railroad after Company, being ex imined, marked, and located duly organized, the surveyed, railroad, of their the route and means in the afore- specified acts, said same the of for said railroad, as the procured right wa.y has been constructed, and become seisecl in fee of the to the lands for that with all the acquired right purpose, privi- thereto, and franchises in relation confirmed and declared leges by the said route of acts; and that the of the west- part railroad, ern division of said between lying Michigan City, of line of and the and western the State of county Laporte, Indiana, located, and of duly surveyed right way That a in said included location acquired. consists duly width, feet in of of from Michi- strip ground eighty extending Indiana, to the west line of the State of and that the City gan has been and is in railroad constructed from Elk- operation, to from to the west line of hart and Lapoi'o'', Michigan City of Indiana. State And and complainants they purchased, say now own in the certain other lands situated on or near fee-simple, line railroad, of said deemed for the which necessary business and said railroad. And aver that they purposes the time and have commenced their road within required, they to, several-acts above referred same, prosecuted That and to required privi- do. they among were and exclusive charters, the sole under their right .and leges and a railroad using' along building, maintaining, privilege Qo. Railroad Railroad of the road. And insist that no route charter the general to other to construct any be lawfully granted any railroad, of said roads, which would road vicinity road, with of said interfere, injuriously, profits materially which has consent complainants, of Indiana has esta- That the to power legislature given." there road, such- no such reserved in the being power blish charter. original allege Rail- And complainants in, created business the State road, a by, corporation doing for the incorporated purpose constructing of' Michigan, Detroit, in the from State of railroad using Michigan, in the same State Lake some acces- point steamboats and with lake; said navigating authority sible o| extend their to the company the State southern boundary that said have constructed and now keep Michigan; Buffalo, from Detroit to use, a railroad New thence southern line of the State direction to- the wards Indiana; in the State of and that Michigan City, the Commissioners of the with Division Western arrangement of Buffalo and Railroad the road Mississippi Company, is now in use to Michigan been extended City. has' that the further allege, And is a created Salem Indiana, certain acts of the legislature under therein, has no business franchise con- and, doing power construction, railroad whatso- struct, or authorize statutes in certain referred to ever, what is contained except defendants, "bill. .the That said the Michi- company, on or about 24-th April, gan other, 1851, entered into a contract each contract and a of the same in is possession discovery That said produced. color b.y that.it prayed, claim the and use a defendants to construct contract railroad, line of the the western State of Michigan City route rail- nearly parallel complainants’ road, in its immediate and several times *8 vicinity, crossing same; locate, construct, and also the the use the right power road, with railroad, over and across the complainants’ aforesaid, franchises and privileges they, exclusive defendants, fit. shall see have so laid the route deféndants out of their road That Indiana, State from to the western line of the Michigan City as which lands, to cross the railroad the title complainants’ upon held by now acquired by, complainants, constructed, with upon which their railroad has xv. von. ¿42 SUPREME1 Ilailrodd and intent of obstructing purpose unlawfully interfering and use of the
with possession, occupancy, complainants’ lands, and the intent to hinder molest them, in the en- and use and franchises to them granted joyment stated, and to defeat the acts exclusive legislative right use a railroad within vicinity. other facts And after many having stating bearing upon and, and Salem Railroad Company; they to show a want of allege, conducing extend their road to and from thence to the City, Indiana, line of the near western State of to and parallel stated, the fendants road, as' above de- complainants’ they pray the construction road, from of their &c. may enjoined The demurrer to bill, defendants filed and a general Court, decree was and in the Circuit entered demurrer sustaining the bill. dismissing At case, of this the question jurisdiction threshold is not arises. road controverted, that the has been constructed, injunction prayed, which Western line of the Michigan City State of Illinois. The de- but to Chicago, murrer admits established facts also charged roads. of both in' surveys part by of the United States, of the Circuit Court jurisdiction limited to States, controversies betweén citizens different _ cases, in certain the district in which it sits. In except this case we shall consider jurisdiction regard contract, (cid:127)to suit the district In all cases of may brought only. If in the Circuit where defendant found. thé maybe Court sued under the decisions lives, out of the district in which he he he but this is a waive. may object, privilege, Wherever the enable the Circuit will jurisdiction person decree, to' effect to its give judgment (cid:127) be is But .wherever subject-matter exercised. controversy district, lies the limit of the local, and beyond it. action of Court, attaches to within An the Circuit sitting district of cannot be maintained in the ejectment quwre land ir other district. can an action trespass Nor the act clausum compJáinéd where fregit .prosecuted, not done in the district. character, Both of these are local in their actions and must the locus court can reach prosecuted, where process quo. built a the defendants have rail- complainants allege their, have entered times; road, several their road crossing so near as to and, carry (cid:127)grounds, by building parallel *9 243 1853. Railroad Co. v. Co. Railroad Indiana their franchise has been im- freight, line passengers same an exclusive run a railroad right That have they- paired. the the have been stated, and they injured seriously route by (cid:127) road. defendants’ is a prevent injunction remedy given wrong, This redress. In adequate at law action give an has Where been in- justice. is wrong nature flicted preventive for, it be a matter before injunction applied may at law an action would not cases, be, most whether doubt, But whether relief first, remedy. sought at at law appropriate question or in jurisdiction équally applies. chancery, Mr. laws, Justice Story In his conflict says, (sec. 463,) trespass actions, such mixed as real upon real property, rt,c referable to the sites. Skinner v. forum, East are properly 168;. Hill, Matthews, v. 4 Law Doulson Term Rep. India Company, 6 82. Watts v. N. Y. But he 503; Rep. Kinney, R. says to act personam court of will act having chancery, authority real and under estate qualifications, situate in a upon indirectly, foreign of this over reason authority country by person, effect decree, to its it release, him will compel give by conveyance, otherwise, or Vas Foster v. respecting property.” Cases, 133; 3 Atk. 1 Abr. sall, 589; Penn v. Equity Lord Baltimore, v. 444; 1 Ves. Lord Cranstown 3 Ves. Johnson, 182, Hall, v. 12 Ves. 323 Lord 183; ; White v. Soul Portarlington Keen, 104; Massie 6Watts, 3 & v. Cranch, 148, 160. Mylne by, “ last case the Chief Justice In says, Upon authority are to cases, and of others which found in the these (cited,) as books, as well court is of general principles, upon opinion that, trust, in a case fraud of or of contract, the of a court sustainable wherever the chancery person found, within the lands not jurisdiction of although be affected the decree.” In another opinion therefore, Was this, as he says, involving considered it, title; naked c'ontest between example, Circuit Watts and Powell, Court Ken would not be sustained.” tucky the court had If .his be acquired jurisdiction person by him, attachment, within will ing State,-they compel trust, do his contract or decree under his enforce duty rem, his otherwise, justice executing conveying White, 7 lands abroad. White v. require, respect 392; Johnson, Wharton, Gill & v. 208; Vaughan Barclay, Peters, v. Holman, Watkins contract, us arise out does of a before controversy nor trust An ex- connected with expressed implied. char- clusive their under claimed complainants, Railroad Northern. therewith, of Indiana connected ácts ters, the legislative have railroad, done, from the they and use city construct line of- the State. And to the western com- of Michigan, entered unlawfully their defendants plain *10 road complainants’ constructed a road se- crossing grounds, it, a by road times, injuring constructing materially veral for threatened is it. Relief done injury to prayed parallel to their real to their Indiana, franchise, in estate which is with the in that State. connected realty inseparably of this to real estate must be case, In the investigation rights a sum- examined, which have been acquired purchase, by by of Indiana. This the laws applies, under mary proceeding complainants’ on which the road is con- especially, ground obtained, lands which have and to for the structed, erection And, road. connected with their addi- facilities defendants, claimed this, the chartered by tion the done, rights their road them to construct as asserted right by road it, the complainants’ running parallel crossing is connected must also Locality investigated. every and with claim set complainants, every wrong charged up by course of such an defendants. In the investigation,, against an issue to the title of the to direct par- it try necessary may be of in the bill. ties, or to assess the damages complained action at could be admitted, It will that no law readily on such sustained district of in- ground, or for action of trespass done Indiana. No ejectment, juries local character have more real could decidedly property, for the of. injuries than the remedy complained appropriate ? such a is a bill chancery And this character by By changed we acquire jurisdiction procedure, reached cannot be local, it subject-matter by chancery being A exercised State of State in-the jurisdiction, Michigan. take the same juris- powers, may Michigan, having chancery matter, this the Circuit diction, in relation to which belongs in the district States, Court of the United Michigan. sitting state, could assume And is court in that that no supposed such jurisdiction. But there another of objection jurisdic- remains ground tion case. and Salem Railroad Com- New The Albany this is As an excuse for this not made a to this suit. pany party a cor- State omission, bill, in company being alleged, of the same State of poration .laws as without it cannot ousting made a complainants, party if relief true; This is the court. pray- ed impairing given of this 1839, under the act company, bemay exercised. Michigan Railroad Railroad contend that neces- The complainants is asked it. decree and that no sary party, defendants to construct their claimed road from bill, derived solely Albany stated this claim is made, under which The contract Salem Company. of it. It is is, part referred to in the consequently, “ both for the stated in the contract public this.company, to extend interest, deemed it their own important good line and thence westward City, Michigan it is also stated that the Illinois, &c. And subscribe for five hundred were Railroad willing Company of the New dollars of the stock Albany thousand as well as to build conditions, certain Company to the Illinois State the entire line of railroad line, City control the same, use and can have the of it, provided they same'shall be reimbursed &c. until the costs of the road, the New one of the of the stock to payment instalments conditions, to be made stipulated, large reimburse of which And.to yet unpaid. as the cost of of dollars assumed a million *11 State, to the line of the which from wéstem road, Michigan City cent, five in with interest sum, if per per at. paid years, forty the railroad to constructed annum, the by. Company, the of shall become the all its New property with equipments, or and the contract Salem pledge mortgage Company, cease. shall the complainants, it was contended by In the that argument acts of the Indiana the New under no act or legislature to construct railroad and Salem Albany Company, words used certain in further north than Crawfordsville. That the the to 11th, 1848, act of company’power February giving to other than those in- their road point points extend any made the df heretofore the dicated the location authority the named in limited to State,” were points previous necessarily And that acts, Salem, and Crawfordsville. in New Albany, north to the road from Crawfordsville Michigan City, extending road to complainants’ and thence west parallel Indiana, it was located without line western of the State any legal authority. From the it that validity above New appears between case, in this Salem is involved charter Albany to , miles, from Crawfordsville Michigán two and three hundred of Indiana. to line of and thence the western City, The, entirely if not road has been construction of that nearly, millions two three completed, at an between expenditure the con- it from this, of dollars. to And in addition appears
m v. made between tract that, company Michigan company the' the conditions of contract, as one latter com- to the in stock New subscribed road, Albany pany dollars, a million of which sum has part half been paid. the relief Now, if this giving com- prayed to declare that should find- it above necessary plainants, to the to New charter and construct their locate authority Albany Company gave road nqrth Crawfordsville, would be it is And that clear, to that any decision company. ruinous declar'e the road from shall which line of western City the State of without of law; protection from must- to Craw- equally Michigan City apply road located and built under fordsville, same is, therefore, This interesting authority. vitally the bill we are called to decide Albany Company; is not made a that the suit. question, although party relief prayed, impossible grant If the New their Albany charter affecting Company. deeply, should claimed be held company, injunction good, would the New injure materially defendants the contract as it would only impair defendants, west- the ward in regard,to Michigan City line, would, but to the State release the probably, from a of half defendants million stock of subscription or at leást from the road, the Crawfordsville payment has,not paid. subscription “ where, suit at of'1839 law or in provides, ariy The.act States, court of the United commenced there any equity shall more one or of whom shall be several or, district, within the of, found be inhabitants cone*, or decree shall not entertained; judgment And non-joinder or are riot no matter other iwho parties. preclude district, found shah inhabitants, or within constitute said suit.” abatement, objection act is cases of this positive, ordinary The provision *12 effect to but in a it'; case like could arise giving difficulty see that the interest of where a court cannot the present, affected, must be if the relief Company vitally the New Albany must refuse to complainants given, prayed by or become the instrument of case; exercise jurisdiction an we bound In such alternative say, injustice.' both the above case is the statute. On not within grounds Court has no stated we think that Circuit jurisdiction. bill, is therefore The judgment dismissing affirmed. Co. v. Central Railroad Co. Justice CATRON and Mr. Justice Mr. CAMPBELL de- Mr. Justice DANIEL separate livered dissented. opinions. Mr. Justice CATRON. The Northern Indiana Railroad and the Railroad Commissioners for the Western Division Buffalo and Railroad their bill filed Mississippi Michigan Company, against in the Circuit Company, Court of States in the United District of Michigan, in- seeldng the defendant to junction against prevent com- down and around the laying railroad south- pany using ern end of Lake and within the State of Indiana; crosses the road of the and runs complainants, to, it, and, near as the parallel complainants allege, (cid:127)will insist that withdraw their And materially profits. complainants have their charter to monopoly by construct road near to and around the southern end of the lake, and that the has defendant violated chartered secured to the complainants, demurred to,
The bill was and the demurrer was sustained the Circuit The first cause of Court. demurrer set forth is, that the not, bill, have their made such case as entitles them to ant or relief the defend- any discovery as to the matters contained them; and the shall of the court is whether the judgment prayed defendant answer; and, make further on this state compelled advance of all others is, pleadings, standing whether the had jurisdiction entertain the bill, Circuit as between these set forth. parties, merits independent case bill that the Northern alleges and the Commissioners of the Buffalo company,were, created the State of Indiana, severally, corporations and were “ in said business State to their charters ; doing according ánd are, in of the Constitution and contemplation laws meaning States, United citizens the State of Indiana, and of. entitled to deemed and taken as such citizens for- all the sued, and for the suing purposes being purposes bill complaint.” A individual members, corporation composed many interest, and to sue in their joint joint right having corpo- name; is, rate consideration here whether presented law, makes creating corporation, corporation citizen,” the Constitution, the fact according regardless of citizen, where its members reside. If the be such then member of Michi- reside in every corporate body might there sue citizens gan, yet United States court.
248 Indiana Railroad u. Northern (cid:127) to the courts of the (cid:127)The Constitution gives jurisdiction “ Now, different States.” if it Union, between citizens be be — — roads, such true, making that &c. corporations sense of'the Constitution, in the established citizens must case of the Louisville been thus settled Railroad decision, have to that 497; as, 2 Letson, How. v. previous did not this court suppose (made 1844,) Let- question presented was a Nor citizen. it. case; son’s far from covenant,' their cor- sued the railroad company Letson members of the com- , name, distinctly averring porate pany Carolina, and that the was' were citizens of South plaintiff citizen of New York. a n abatement, that Rutherford and Thé defendant pleaded Caro-, stockholders, citizens North were two of the Baring, Carolina was also of South stock- and that the State lina; demurrer, which was there was sustained holder. To this plea court. and in this in the Circuit she the State could held, object, 1. That stood It was . and need individual stockholder on the foot every - and, sued; stockholders, who were changing every day, 2. That fugitive suit, in a need to be included too numerous and quite .not of record. made parties case, seems to been the This,, from report who of the members of were unanimous opinion it was time; opinion. at the certainly my present of the railroad were and directors The president their citizens to be be, and admitted plea, alleged stockholders, and were Carolina;' represented South on the stockholders. trustees, acts were and whose binding their to the act of of 1839, state of conformed Congress This and 50th rules for 48th, 49th, 47th, spirit iq courts, federal adopted practice chancery government in 1842. case overruled decision assumed, that Letson’s is now 'decision Cranch, 276. That un Curtis, v. in Strawbridge the true rule. on doubtedly proceeded' to a bill in equity; There were various complainants citizens of some of the bill alleged de- that the Massachusetts, the suit was brought; where Curtis, Massachusetts, except also citizens of fendants were was served Vermont, be of who was subpoena stated each held, distinct' There, him in that State. all of whom are en- should be interest represented by persons, courts.” A bill thus sue, sued, in the federal titled to framed day seriously. at this be treated hot could Co. v. Central Railroad Co. next case to be in conflict with supposed Letson’s case of the United States Bank is that Devereux, Cranch, 61. Bank of the United The old States sued Devereux and Robert- *14 the son, in Circuit Court of that it Georgia, was a cor- alleging under established an act of of and 1791; poration Congress the further, that the President, petitioners, Directors, alleging, and of the son, of Bank of States,-were the the United Company citizens Robert- State of and that and Devereux Pennsylvania; the were citizens of this aver- Georgia; held ment was sufficient the court. That Letson’s overruled of case that the Bank R. R. of Vicks- others, true; v. Slocum and is overruled, it was burg justly Richards, as I think. al- Slocum, Bank, & sued the Company that were citizens of Louisiana, and the Presi- leging dent, Directors, and of the Bank citizens were of Mis- abatement, The Bank in Lambeth sissippi. pleaded stockholders, two of were of citizens Louisiana. Thompson, And this sustained that whereas, to Let- plea; according case, it son’s was immaterial where re- the stockholders quite that the sided, so and directors citizens of president the suit was State where brought. is, aWhat was discussed in Devereux’s corporation very fully I here, nor-will discuss it case further I do not Cranch); (5 on to of feel called this prove, legal profession country, is a that the citizen. And as no averment is corporation us, bill before directors of president are of citizens different States corporations suing, sued, I think de- corporation directors president mqrrqr sustained, to be and the court below instructed to ought the bill. dismiss for a I view assumption citizenship corporation limits to United evasion of the mere States prescribed the Constitution. The courts profitable corporations cities; there the degree owned great president charter reside; often an- directors other whilst granted State, and there the an business owners-keep agency, fact conducted in the city. being and directors sue these owners their next neigh- Now -courts, States State United bors of own city, their that the citizen of the to the rule according created, jurisdiction depends State where .that fact. this sole an from this bench I consent _ opinion Could pronounce author- and, therefore, deemed extrajudicial, by myself expose irregularity argument might attempt ity, adjudication confined, law) within impotence of an Cov v. Northern-Indiana limits, with prescribed geographical respect subjects purely it should be extend local, whenever attempted operation of such allotted the locus to which the law adjudication has beyond it. For this character has been the action of the Court Circuit these two upon controversy corporations before us. The Northern now in- of Indiana, have of an corporated by complained invasion of their a tort real local rights, situated property within by company territory incorporated by, and situated State of within, the and the Circuit Michigan; Court -limited in State Michigan, cognizance thp State, local matters to has undertaken to territory merits of But adjudicate upon complaint. irregular and futile as is the action of the Circuit Court of Michigan, been, all admitted can it and as here have been on the than is the of this tri- irregular undertaking, more bunal, character of pronounce authoritatively acts, or the relative over parties, rights,and powers Circuit claimed the the bunal has Is cognizance? *15 Circuit Court and warrant this tri- cognizance by by same? Are not-both essentially, precisely, nay, all, Constitution to be if at of the found, United existing that is it And not indispensable cognizance States? thé vested in be Circuit Court, and certainly regularly should If it be asked, this court can sanction validity? before by n the Circuit Constitution the- could what provision it must, of ne- controversy, present assume jurisdiction .that, 3d sec. provision be referred to which Art.) (2d cessity, to controversies between citizens of the judicial power extends and admitted; This, indeed, admission States. different carries a corporation implication inevitably certain citizen, a become must, must, ex purposes, in order to attributes ob- necessitate, citizenship possess ,= the United States. a court of access to- a Having, tain et Rundle al. case of v. The Dela- occasion, former ware to (vide Howard, in, Canal endeavored and Raritan 95,) to, involved incident incongruities expose how a I will not further attempt conception, anomalous — remark, obvious of' them beyond enumeration citizenship existence, created by authority, corporate some at be, to extent least, deemed this court by being this court to call authorize be case to identical, as must that, same extent, them, it must follow before .parties can become a a citizen cor- citizen, can be a corporation latter transformation may The process by poration. out. We has not told. pointed be accomplished yet TERM; .251 Co.'?). Michigan Railroad Co. the decisions English jurists, English by so, courts, too, of the United the case the Bank States Devereux, Marshall, J., it is laid C. down sense, one invisible, is an artificial creature. In at intangible, — least, the invisible and citizen render himself intangible may abscond. he must become artifi- he cial, In what signification varieties, will infinite which may imagined, amongst be determined. But in the the more difficulVto present attributes, even of his possession portion corporate citizen be deemed a when shall quasi corporation, con- doubtless, in that convenient; will, thought chrysalis dition, furnish as. just integral legal representation citizen, can as the latter' ever quasi entity, supply sought*to identify shape it is real, material, and social with whom being it. f( still small and vain as éver will Powerless probably voice” of declaration of those still, to the united individual, an humble in opposition wise, the learned considered justly the effort can under the most solemn conviction of duty, voice in accents alarm never to raise that humble forborne the sacred bark in at whatever is believed to threaten even which of the United States is both of the States and safety of the United I the Constitution that, hold freighted. beyond either in the mass or in States, there no federal government, the detail. and limits That prescribed by beyond pale instrument, to be indirect ingenious or interpreted, constructions, forced remote the.plain implications, familiar and common-sense of its language import language, all is unwarranted common and understanding, general of all termination federal legitimate assumption wrong —a belief feel, as I Whilst therefore I my profess, really power. think themselves wisdom and of those who justi- purity the terms and fied in what I as an regard infringement to record charter, of our I am constrained objects solemn my act. and their their doctrine protest against *16 On these I dissent from the just grounds opinion pronounced, to the that remanded and' think this cause should over which it, dismiss as one Court, Circuit with directions to have, no the courts of the United States jurisdiction to the respect parties. Justice CAMPBELL. Mr. I concur of the court the denying fully opinion bill. The to the Circuit Court to this objection entertain .made in the exercise of fairly opinion jurisdiction, case. the of the The record, is sufficient to dispose presented Burden.
Corning'et. al. v. the averments question upon to determine any court has declined of the parties. ques- citizenship in regard this ease was when where it was presented. tion left exactly ' be drawn the con- inference facts, that no these Xstate to. not be misunderstood. of the court the decision trary, Order. This, on the be heard came on to transcript cause United Court of the States for the Circuit Dis-
record from counsel. On consideration of and was argued trict court, that Circuit of Court whereof, it is the opinion and oh that the bill case, was ground had therefore, no error in the dismissed; was, there decree properly ordered, is now here of said court. Whereupon adjudged, the decree of the said decreed, Circuit affirmed, the same be, Court cause hereby, in this costs. F. Corning Winslow, and John Plaintiffs
Erastus Peter A. Burden. Error, infringement patent-right, a ought of the defendant brought for a suit bo In claims, give patent although junior under which he evidence allowed patent. plaintiff’s rolling puddler’s for patent for a new and usefiil balls and machine other Burden’s iron,” iron, patent machine, of in manufacture masses of and not a equivocal. although language the claim was process, explained process and a machine. difference between Hence, to exclude for the Circuit Court evidence'offered to it was erroneous show' principle giving effect to the embodied practical manner machine Burden, plaintiff; the defendants was different from that that the machine produced other; a different mechanical result from defendants of. the mechanical action machines structure and mechanical two . different. witness-upon opinion patent, construction of the Evidence offered machine, properly rejected. process or a it was for whether error, writ of case from the Cir- up, by was brought This for Northern District of cuit of the United States York. Burden, Burden, his Peter A. assignee Henry brought Winslow, for violation of a action patent against Corning and first as the inventor and disco- original granted Henry, useful machine balls verer of new and rolling puddle manufacture of iron. iron, masses is set at-the trial forth took opinion What place of the Circuit Court, Under the instructions jury court.