"It is well settled that a corporation of one state doing bustness tn another is suable where its business is done, if the laws make provision to that effect."
Perhaps the latest expression of the supreme court on this subject is in New England Mut. L. Ins. Go. v. Woodworth, 111 U. S. 138, S. C. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 364, where Mr. Justice BLATCHFORD says:
"In the courts of the United States, it is held that a corporation of one state, doing business in another, is suable in the cuurts of the United States established in the latter state, if the laws of that state so provide, and in the manner provided by those laws."
See, also, Eaton v. St. Louis Shakspear Min. ct S. Go. 7 FED. REP. 139; West v. Home Ins. Go. 18 FED. REP. 622. At the time these suits were brought, Massachusetts had no local law making foreign corporations doing business in the state amenable to suits, 'except foreign insurance companies, and except the provisions in relation to attachment, which, under a well-settled rule, could not give this court jurisdiction. Recently, however, feeling the necessity for such a law, a statute has been passed requiring all foreign corporations doing business in the state to appoint an agent, upon whom service can be made. Acts 1884, c. 330. The plaintiffs rely upon the case of Hayden v. Androscoggin Mills, 1 FED. REP. 93. A question of jurisdiction there arose on a motion to dismiss, and the decision was based primarily on the im· propriety of the motion. Judge LOWELL, however, goes on to discuss the merits of the question, and while he intimates, at the close, that if the question was brought up in some new form, his decision might be different, yet he gives it as his opinion that a foreign trading corporation doing business in the state of Massachusetts may be sued in the circuit court, by summons duly served upon an officer of the company, the fact of attachment being immaterial. We cannot adopt this view in the light of what we believe to be the great weight of authority on this question. Thfj pleas to the jurisdiction of the court are sustained.
NORTON, Chief Supervisor, v. BREWSTER, State Supervisor of Registration. 1
(Circuit (Jourt, E. D. Loui8iana. November 1, 1884.) The jurisdiction of the United States courts must appear of record, and be derived from congressional enactments. I. SAME-REV. ST. TIT. 26. Under title 26 of the Revised Statutes of the United States the circuit court js given jurisdiction at certain elections to appoint supervisors to scrutinize the election, and under title 70, Crimes, to try criminal violationa of the law.
lReported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orlean.
NORTON V. BREWSTER.
of the United States relating to the elections of members of congr('s.g, hut it - nowhere appears that congress has adopted the election and registration laws of any state.
On twenty-seventh October, 1884, the plaintiffs presented to the court a petition, in which they represent themselves to be the chief supervisor of elections for this district, appointed by this court under title 26 of the Revised Statutes of the United States; several of the ward supervisors of election in the city of New Orleans, appointed at the request of the Democratic party; and a number of canvassers appointed by the Democratic party,-for that part of the parish of Orleans within the First congressional district of the state of Louisiana. They allege that a general election is pending, and to take place on fourth November, 1884, for the offices of president and vice-president of the United States, and for members of congress, undedhe laws of the United States and of the state of Louisiana; that part of the city of New Orleans is in said First congressional district by the laws of Louisiana; that the federal government, through its proper officers, has all of the right of control, inspection, and direction'set forth in title 26 of the Revised Statutes of the United States; that under said statutes the law relating to the registration of the voters of Louisiana became and is a part of the law of the United States relating to the registration of voters for said election; that the act No. 123 of the legislature of Louisiana, of 1880, is the said registration law, which provides for the appointment of a supervisor of election for the parish of Orleans, (the parish of Orleans and city of New Orleans have the same geographical boundaries,) and defines his duties, among which he is required to register such persons as are entitled to vote, and to expunge from the list of registered voters all persons who have been committed to prisons as convicts, who have died subsequent to registration, who have departed the state or district, or who have become insane; that he is also required, upon the affidavit of any two bonafide citizens who have been appointed by any political party and have been duly sworn to perform their duty as canvassers, and who present to him an affidavit that certain names are fraudulently and illegally registered and should be erased, to inyestigate the same, and after due proceedings, cause said names to be erased from.the registration; that said act further provides that, in case of the failure of the supervisor to so investigate and erase, an appeal may be made to any court of competent jurisdiction, to be tried in the most summary way, etc.; that the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Louisiana, now sitting in special session, is the only court of competent jurisdiction in session within said First congression.al district; that Robert Brewster is now the supervisor under the said act, and that the plaintiffs' have, under oath, as such officers and canvassers as aforesaid, caused to be made an exact canvass of all that part of the city of New Orleans within the First congressional district, and all the inhabitants thereof. and have ascertained that all of the persons named in the lists herewith presented and filerl are contained and exist
npon the books of registration in said parish of Orleans wrongfully and fraudulently, and that said persons have no right to vote; and that these plaintiffs have caused the said lists of names, with the requisite affidavits concerning each name made and sworn to by two officers, and have in all things done every act and given every notice and proof required by law to compel said Brewster to strike said names from the books and lists of registration, but said Brewster refuses to take any steps or proceedings to erase said names, and will, in no manner, invest,igate the truth of thematter so presented to him; wherefore plaintiffs pray that said Brewster be ordered to show cause why he should not erase the said names from the books of registration. The court granted a motion on the same day ordering Robert Brewster to show cause, on thirty-first October, 1884, why the relief prayed for should not be granted. On the thirty-first October, 1884, the cause was heard, defendant having filed an exception, on the grounds (1) that the court had no jurisdiction in the premises, as there is no delegation of authority by congressional enactment; (2) that the court had no jurisdiction to proceed by rule, or in a summary manner i (3) that the proceeding discloses no cause of action. James R. Beckwith, for plaintiffs. M. J. Cunningham, Atty. Gen., James B. Eustis and L. O'Don· nell, for defendants. PARDEE, J. .'fhe jurisdiction of this court must appear of record, and be derived from congressional enactments. There is no statute conferring jurisdiction in a matter or controversy of the kind now before me. Under title 26, Rev. St., relating to the elective franchise, the circuit court is given jurisdiction in certain elections to appoint supervisors to scrutinize the election. Under the title of "Crimes" the circuit conrt is given jurisdiction to try criminal violations of the laws of the United States relating to the elections of members of congress. Further than as given by these two titles, the cir,cuit court has no jurisdiction in the matter of elections. A plausible argument in favor of the jurisdiction might perhaps be made if congress had adopted the state statutes in relation to elections, and then a controversy involving over $500 as to private rights the state law, and inferentially under the appeared, arising laws of the United States. In such a case the act of March 3, 1875, conrts of the United States giying original jurisdiction to the of.all suits of a civil nature at COlllmon law or in equity where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of $500, and arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, etc., might, perhaps, be successfully invoked. But we have no such case here; for it nowhere appears that congress has adopted the election and registration laws in the present case no sum or value is suggested. of a.nystate, It is clear that the court is w.ithout jurisdiction, and the petition for Telief is therefore refused and dismissed.
THE LIBERTY BELL.
THE LIBERTY BELL. 1
and others v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.1
(Circuit Oourt, E. D. Louisianrt.
June 4, 1885.)
MUNICIPAL LAW-MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS.
An ordinance making an appropriation of the funds of a city, derived from taxation, for purposes wholly beyond the purview of municipal government, is a wrongful appropriation of the funds held in trust for the tax-payers lind people to pay the alimony and legitimate expenses of the city, and is, in short, ultra. vires, illegal, null, and void. Resident tax-payers have the right to invoke the interposition of a court of equity to prevent an illegal disposition of the moneys of a municipal corporation or the illegal creation of a debt which they, in common with other property holders, may otherwise be compelled to pay. Ol'wnpton v. Zabriskie,lOl U.
In Chancery. Rule for an injunction. Edgar H. Farrar, E. B. Kouttschnitt, Charles B. Singleton, Richard H. Browne, Benj. F. Choate, Edwctrd D. White, Eugene D. Sewnders, John H. Kennard. W. W. Howe, S. S. Prentiss, and Charles E. Schmidt, for complainants. Walter H. Rogers, City Atty., for defendants. PARDEE, J. An injunction, pendente lite, is asked on the following bill:
"Joseph Bayle, a resident of the city of New Orleans and state of Louisiana, and a citizen of the French Republic, brings this bill of complaint against the city of New Orleans, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the state of Louisiana, and as such a resident of said state, and against Isaac W. Patton, treasurer, and John N. Hardy, comptroller, of the city of New Orleans. both citizens of the state of Louisiana, and residing in this uistrict. "And thereupon your orator complains and says: That your orator is a resident tax-payel' of the city of New Orleans, who pays annually into the city treasury municipal taxes exceeding $500 in amount; that some time in the year 1884. the city of Philadelphia was applied to by the World's Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition to allow a certain bell, well known as the 'Liberty Bell.' to be sent to New Orleans and put upon exhilJition on the grounds of the said exposition company; that the said bell was transmitted to New Orleans by the city of Philadelphia, and placed upon exhibition in the exposition grounds, with some agreement or underst.anding that the said bell should be considered as in the custody of the corporation of the city of New Orleans, and that it should be returned to the city of Philadelphia at the close of the exposition, on or about the thirty-first of. May, 1885; and that said bell was, as your orator is informed and believes, and so charges, brought to the city of New Orleans by rail, and without charge, and that the committee or persons in charge of said bell were also brought to the city of New Orleans free of transportation expenses. "Your orator is informed and believes, and so charges. that any of the rail1Heported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq;. of the "ew Orleans bar.