DUERK V. IlrIHAEUSER.
Th,e case will be referred to a master, to state an account between the parties in conformity to the views herein expressed. When the balance due the plaintiffs is ascertained, we will cunsider whether they may not be entitled to an injunction againtthe defendant until he pays the arrears of royalties so found to be due·.
BUERK 11. IMHAEUSER.
(Circuit Oourt, S. D.Ne1J/ 1'(1/'&. ;ll'y 1, 188l.)'" ::.
, A' bill is not'demnrrab1e when a 'foundatIon has been ·lirld for 'SonM' iJtUi.edis, , c.ov.ery Sind relief'aSked. 'E' , ..
Noonl! can object. to a bill on ,the ground of m,ul.tqarious;uess unless
, , '" .
3. PUACTI:CE-ArrEARlNG GENERALLY-
By appearing generally. one waives his right toobjeot that hetsnot named as a defendant in praY,er for a .
J'. Vansantv01'd, I for plaintiff. A. N. Briescn, for defendant Imhaeuser.
BLA.TCHFORD, C. J; As the demurrer is to the whole bill,' and Mt to any, particular discovery or relief asked, and as a .foundationAs laid in the bill for at least some of the discovery and relief asked; the first ground of demurrer must he overruled. The defendant Imhaeuser, being liable for each one of the amounts decreed inthe,one suit, is not in a position to raise the objection of multifariousness, as he is in no worse position by having only one suit against him than if there were three. Imhaeuser has no concern with the matters referred to in the third ground of demurrer. As Imhaeuser has appeared generally in the suit, he has waived his right to object that he is not named as a defendant in the prayer for Bubpama, and he has no ooncern with the naming of others in such prayer. The demurrer is overruled, with leave to the defendant Imhaeuser to answer in 30 days, on payment of the plaintiff's costs on the demurrer, to be taxed.
,4> LewELJ;. J1AILROAD
" . ;",."
and o.thers, v. BOSTON & im?
,AugWlt 27, 18B!.}
(Oircu# Oou,1't j
Two STATES. A railroad corporation which extended into two 'states, and was originally chartered in each state, and subsequently consolidated by law in both states, does not thereby lose its separate citizenship in each state, so as to preclude it from maintaining an action in the federal court against another corporation, created and existingso:lelyunder theJaws of one of the two states, where the that its c?rporate existence as derived from the other of· said two'litates'.
This bill byJhe Corporation, which is alleged to he a citizen of NcewHampshire, and other citizens of that state, against the Boston & 'Lowell' Railroad Corporati'. It appearj;l that the plaintiff corporation is a corporation, operatiqga continuousrline of ,railroad" which lies partly in Massachusetts and partly in New is,fotmedby the union ()f two distinct corporations, each having the sa.tneIia.me, chartered under the laws of the two states. The ,defl3udants filed,aplea to the j'tirisdic.theAourthad jurisdiction, fortheTreason ijpn., .thef ,n$ iuvplvea 'fJontroversy .between citizens differq.llestion was a.:tgl1ed some time since.. A. BrQQ'-'s, Jor plainti:ff. 1:J. G. Abbotii:8i.lJ.SI,.S.f!.B,. ,..4,1>.qp(t, for, defendant. ·NELso,N,J).J.i .,. Thia'cPi.a.e was argued, at the lastOatober of thiscQurtdtpOD ,the of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court and Judge, ,LoweJl,0. "J(j! then" to.Qkthe papers for the purpose of deGisj,on,.but S\)Dunfter<Wl1rder'SY,aa in some way led to suppose that the, case, haq.beon. the parties, and so gave it no further consideration. be went abroad he was infanned: nQ,t ,bEien' aditlsted,and he left ,it 'with: me fQJ; de.terqlwat.i,o,n" flQ:/tfllibt'th.e Q.ecision now to bellnnouneed has been reached by myself alone. ,I ,.1 The Nashua & Lowell Railroad Company was separately chartered under the laws of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and the two corporations so created were afterwards consolidated by law in both states. It has been settled by the supreme court of the United States that corporations created by different states and afterwards