in court ofjbeUnite-d the tion now urged agaulst.thEljurisdiction ofthlS court; and it would be compelled, in order to enforce the, pr()villions of the telegrl\ph act, to invoke the jurisdiction of a state court, without the privilege of removing the suit, after it was brought, into the circuit court; the right of removal being' given,by the act of 1887, only t6 defendants. (3) A citizen of California can bring suit in ,this court against a corporation of another whiclldoes businesjl'here by agents located in this state and district, if jurisdiction be founded only on the, diverse citizenShip of thepartiesj according to the defendants' interpretation of Jhe act of congress, 1hiscourt cannot entertain jurisdiction of a suit brought by the United under the authority of Ian act of-congress, against the same corPotation, upon a like actiOn. While it iseompetent for congress to declare what part of thejudicia.l power of the 'Unitetl States, as defined by the triaf be by it establi'sh¢s, liot lightly presume tnat ifiwas' intendedto prodnee the reslilt.s .frbin' the upon the act of for the ": " ..' . '. : The is 'df th,e6pinion that the cltflise' iIitbefirst section of the ,1887', requiring sUi'ts to be hrougHt· in, the district of the 'rtlsidenee either of the plaintiff or of tfie defendant where jurisdiction is fot1Iid:edrinly on' ill of CitizensHi;p, applies only ,to" suits in which the' 'parties, 'Whethet ot aI'tificial persons, are of different 'states," arid :camiot applyto 'suits brought by the UnitedStaties.;:The generai'g'6verriment'is 'prlolsent everywher¢ withiri tHe ;terfit6riaI limits 6f th¢ United under statutcll;may invoketbe juijsd,idti()li'Of ;any Circuit court of thetTnited States in respect to 'allY cause of action it nilly have. against a natural or artificial -person, subject only 'to thecori'dition'that it§suit must be brought 'in the district of which the defend'therefore, to be is ant is an '''iitbabitimt." -whether' a corporation created bytbe 'laws of' another state, but doing h'ere, and ba*,ing'its agents located within the territ9tialjurisdiction of this 'court; 'may not,withiri the meaning of the statute, be :deemed an'tinhabitant" of this state abddistrict. i . ; 'Numerous <lases have been cited bythe.cOUI1sel of defelldantsas showing that a corporation of one state is an inhabitant only of the state ere,atingit. Upon'a careful examination of those cases, the court IS of no one Of :them determines tbe precise question now before 'opinion :it. The in principles:. '. ',. ' 1. While a,'corporation is domicHedin' the' state by whose laws iit mis -created, itslegalexisterice in that state may be recognized elsewhere; so that, within the scope of its limited powers, it may make imd enforce ,(lontracts in: other states which are by the laws of such iltates. B'z'nlC'v. EiLrle, 13 pet.519,588:, 589j Ohristian Union v. Yount, 101 U. S. 352;356. , In,the latter case, it was said thilt--";In otcomity obtaining tile Union!; thevr,esumption ;ilhould be induIgeii,thata, of onestate,-'not forbIdden by the laW of its being, may exercise Wltbinany
its qwn !}b,/l.rteJ;. It is, pro'iii :d,ireet .of. tb'elatter state, or 1Jr, lts,lpt'lbliC; policy. to'l.JEi deduced froln the otlegislation. or 1tom t the settled adjudicati6hs6t its hIghllst court." " ,
of jurisdiqtlP9 if! thecou.,rts, of the United ;States, a c<;>rp<?l'ation·. is tq be deemed a of th\3 creating it. and no Railroadpo. 2 How. 497; Ma:r$fuul v, Railrqad Co.· 16l:1ow. 314; Jn8tfm llce Cb. v. French, 18 4Q8; Dra:w-Bridge, Cor Shepherd, How. ,227; Railroad Cb. v.Wheeler, 1 Black.; 286, 297j,!>cauZ v..virginia,;8 WalL 168; Rail't'oaeJ Co.!· .flarris, 12, :Wall. 65; ,R(Jilroad Co. v,Kocmtz, 104 U. S. 5, 12; U. ·. 7$'up, l 3 · .!: cqrporaH0n. ,of9011 state, hY:J!,qgaging in businesl>pr acquiring not, the.re1?Y cease to be a citizen of the ,sfl!.te Co. v, Wall.,21,Oj) although, oU875 WA$; pe "found "inapy state where J;'egular1y.,byjts pro,cess upot;l s1,lch agents. Ex parte fi3. In the latter c"se the Wll.$ uDQf>ceElsarytpinquire whe,tlier :s,uch IlcorporatioDWas the meaning of the act of 1876, in w,l1ich it , ·' ,, ·. ' upon much stress: ifJJaid by) In, Ban/f oj 4,ugy,ata v.Earle, it was said cor,pQrp.ti.op in of itscrEllltion, and in Loui,wille Railroad Co. v.Letson, it jS811 9f,the sta,tawhicbbrought ipnto exi$tence; !i.n.rMarBhallv;,]:l·· ,Jc qompany, that"itll necessary habitlj,t"is ; thatac;:orporation has its "legal home" is;lol<lltepby or its charter; and in Railroad J:Of v. : thllt ,a corpQra*m, by d.oingbusine!js: away ;from its "legal its A much relied upoll is .1718urcffice .Go. y. Jitanci3;", That was a, suit in a court of::j)1isYork corporation, iMng business, by af};ents, in tlle:stllte of Missi,Elsippi. ' The plaintiff spugl;1t ,to .remove the cir(lQitcourt of the United Statt's un,der the act .of1867! giving the cpntroversy was II between a, in which the a citizen ofanothenrst.ilte." Jt"w,as,h\lldtpat,tbe corporation of.;Ne"" a citizen of could noLbe relljloved. there, and can he, nowQere l]plike ,\1, ;and, nmy, be itscbarter does panpot on ,All,\t ,acRQ,l,mt rt's1dence "" .,' .\ C\lses u;ndou pff its allegiance or..ret>p.91lsibilit,y; to. gave it apd thl}t legal dOU1icile ,or hllbitatio,nl;-that .is, its citizensQipl7"is lii,';' ,u bli:,' . ..'CO.'li. ,tfiEl.'p.\Iii,p. tI,.ll1g . ·il.d",bc. . "a of
, . / ' ;., '.' , ,.1-':,. . ',.'.'
laws it was made an !a.rtifiCial Blil'Doitherthose the supremec?tlrt oftM4Jnited 'States, directlydecides tbat'a:icdrporation may notdn addition to legal habitation or home-in the state or its 'creation, acquiTe a in, or become of, another state; for pfirposes oflbusiness,llnd of ti6n i tnpel"8onam. '. ""'" < " ' , ,."n;!' , ' "" <It is eminently just that'the deferidancir't1ot corpOrations of this state, . shlimld,be,regatdedaEiLiiihabitlflilts of 'this distn-et di'c,tiori'. ofthem"Wurl.dei" a duty ;'impbsedby the constitution of thi!;/state; Jto'have and ma'intain an office or place here for the transac..; tion of business. By the instrument it is provided tbait i'lO eigri':'ctjfpora.tion shall blFa1l6wed to trhnsact business here oritnoreJapi-escrIbed: by law to 'similar corporations organized 'under thelaws'ofthis state; also,that 'a corporation 01' 388OQi.Htioo: 'may< 'tie sued;' in 'tlie-: ctnmty ,Where the is·'made'ot: :j$ t<f be performed, or where the obligation or liability ariSeS' 'Oil'. .thel1:l.reaoli occurs, or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject. to the power- of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases. Const. Cal. 1879, art. 12, §§ 1416. The Code of Civil Procedure provides that, in a suit against a ,uM-er·'the lil.ws1ofcthiA stlite;thlHmlmilOns must be corporation served on the ,president,. or other head of the. corporation, secretary, cashier, or against a foreign cor·
thIs such, secr&j tary. Section,: 411. And,by,atl; 'actapproved ,Apcil '3, 1S8Qj"ir,was provided, tbahvery raIlway durporatloD; and every, corporation.organized has peen,'or ,ma!. for tha f tfjrn.l tory oftne'Umted States, or of any act of congress, may bmld rlllWlitys. exercise the right of eminent domain, and do or transact any other' bug.; under 'orbY:iVirtueoHhe,lawso£ this,:statcj,ba,vingthe r-priv. and 'ih\Jmullities t 'and the' same. penalties, .obligatiolls, 8nqbl'l'tderls; as jfrthey: hiad been crelttedor organil!e'd 'underthei lilwB'of ltis cQrpQnttions' Sthe: to the Implied condItIon that they may be brought, 'by serVIce of' process upon their agents, before the courts of this jurisdiction; and, in respect to railroad corporations organized under the laws of other states, and doing business here, they become, for most, if not for all, practical purposes, inhabitants of this state. If it be said that inhabitancy in a state, in its strict legal sense, implies a permanent, fixed residence in that state, the answer is that a corporation of one state. operating, by agents, a railroad or telegraph line in another state, with its consent, or under its license, may be regarded as permanently identified with the business and people of the latter state, and, for the purposes of its business there, to have a fixed residence
within-its; ;lhnits; for it may be assull)ed that it will eXEll't its 'pc>'We1's during the whole of its cOl'porate existence, or so long as it is:profi,table to do so. It does ,there just what it would do if it had teceiYl'ldltli charter from that state. It seems to the court that a corporation or a corpQration of: the United States. holding such close relations with the business and people of another state, may. within interpretation of the act of 1887, be d.eemed an "inhabitaJa,t "of: I the fla,tter state for all purppsell of jUJ,'isdiction in personam by the cmutsheld lit Qorporationis, and,while its cor", porate existence Illsta, U',lustrema,in, ,lit" citizen" only of the state which gave it life. ',' ; " It is, ordered, .andadjudged that motions to dismiss, so Caras they ,question the jurjsdiction of, this court )to in against the several defendant, corpora as inhabitants, of, ,dil>trict, within the ,mfilaning Qf.the aboV;6 .aot ,of cOQgress, be,B.J;ldthe same are hereby: ,oVerruled.
i' . - ' . __,
PAO. ,R. Oo.;,CaZ.
, ''''.' ,
'In:tqtllty·· SUit bftlieunfted States ligainstthe CentralJ»aci6c Railroad ChmpaoYo'the S'?titliern Plicifle CompaiIyj and the Western Union Telegraph COmpany. Heard on. pleas and'motions to dismiss; Overruled. '.Atty. gen. Miller'and Oharles H. Alarich,for the United St,at;es. OJi,arlesH. Tweed,J. Hubley .4"shtrm. HarveyS. B<J:Qwn. for the Cen. l'ac1qc, Railroad, Compa,9-Y and the Sontb.ern Pacific " , WagerSwavne and Bush Western Union Telegraph Company. . ,
'; !.'} ,
Circuit Justice. The qtiestions'presented,ln this CRse do not fer'iil any material respect from thosedisp08edofin the case of U. B. v. Railroad; 00.,' 49 Fed. Rep. 297. For the reasons given in the ,opinion in that adjqdged thaUhepl6l\8. and, IQotions to dismiss. sotar'13. quelltion jurisdiction of this to proceed pel'sonatnagainst the lIeve.ral defendant co,rporatlons. ,as inhabItants of thiS state and distriot,. be/and the same are overruled. ' ". '
,'." t. .