NEW ORLEAN8&: MEMPHIS PACKET CO. tI. JAME!.
21
to the control of the navigable waters of the country, and the lands under them, for the purposes of navigation, but for the purpose of erecting piers, bridges, and all other instrumentalities of commerce which, in the judgment of congress, may be necessary or expedient. Entertaining these views with regard to the power ofcongress over the whole subject of the regulation of commerce among the several states, including that of the navigable waters of.the country, and the lauds under the same, as subsidiary to that end, we have no hesitation in declaringour opinion to be that the authority given by the act of June 16, 1886, to build the bridge in question, and, for that purpose, to erect the necessary piers of such bridge upon the lands under water of Arthur kill, is valid and constitutional, and does not injuriously affect any property· or other rights of the state of New Jersey. This conclusion resolves also the other questions remaining unanswered, with regard to the true construction of the act, and the capacity of the defendant the Staten Island Rapid T.tansit Railroad Company to perform the acts necessary to execute the authority given by congress. The information is dismissed, with costs, and the injunction heretofore is dissolved.
NEW ORLEANS &; MEMPHIS PACKET Co· .,. JAm:B.
Co.
tI. SAME.
GREENVILLE
& N. O.
PACKET
Co. v.
PLANTERS'TRANBP. SAME.·
(CirCUit Oourt, E. D. Loui8iana.
June 1, 1887.)
CoNSTITUTIONAL LAW-INTERSTATE COMMERCE-CORPORATIONS.
Article 236 of the constitution of Louisiana. which provides that no foreign QOrporation shall do any business in this state without having one or more known places of business, and an authorizl;ld agent or agents in the state upon whom process can be served, is null and void, being an attempt on the part of the state to interpose a restriction on and therefore in eon· tiictwith the provisions of the act of congrelll approved eighteenth February, 1798, passed in pursuance of a clear authority under the constitution of the United States.'
T. L. Bayne and Gep. Dtmegre, for complainants. W. F. D. a. Mellen, for defendant. J. Tothe plaintiffs' claim defendant interposes the exception that the plaintiffs, chartered or existing under the laws of the state lReported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., olthe New Orleans bar A state statute cannot be so construed as to limit the right of any foreign corporationto make contracts in the state for carrying on interstate commerce. Cooper Man.. uf'g co. v. Fergnson; I) Bup. Ct. Rep. 739. A.ny control or regulation by a state of .the navil/:ation of ita waters Is an encroach. ment upon the powers of conj!;fess. Ferry Co. v. Co 01., 5 Sup. Ct. Rep'. 826. Respecting interstate commerce in general, see Pearson v. International Distl1ler;y, (Iowa,) M N. W. Rep. I, and note. I
FEDERAL REPORTER.
of: Kentucky, have failed, to oomply with the provisions of article, 238 of the 'constitution of the stat& of Louisiana, wbich provides that no foreign corporation shall do any business in this state without having one or more known places of business, and an authorized agent or agents in the state upon whom procesS may be served. Held, that the provision of the constitution of Louisiana referred to, being an attempt on the part of the state to interpose a. restriction on navigation, and therefore in conflict ,with the provisions of the act of congre:::s approved February 18. 1793, passed in. pursuance of a clear authority under the constitution of the United Statel:l, is null and void. Sinnot v. Davtmport, 22 How. 227. E:x:ceptionoverruled, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiffS in each cause.,
HICKORy:FARM
OIL
Co: fl. BUFFALO,N. Y. &: P. R. August
(GrcuitOouf't.
w: D ·. PcmnB1/Zflania.
1887.)
I.
FORBIGN CoRPORATIONS-RIGHT TO HOLD RBAL ESTATE':"'EFFECT olfDEBD.
,
Under the Pennsylvania act of April 26, 1855, (1 Purd. 861,) which forbid. a foreign c01Poratlon to "acquire and hold" real estate, a deed of conveyance of land to luch a corporatlon'1snot void.' It passes the title, and the corporation may hold the land subject to the commonwealth's right of escheat.
.. SAME-RIGHT Olf OBJECTION.
'J:he c()lUmc;lDwealthalonecan object to the legal capacity ofa corporatiOJl to llold real estate. 1 "
Ejectment. Question of law reserved. Jolvn Dalzell, for plaintiff: . J. D. Hancock, for ,ACHESoN,J. By consent of the parties, & verdict was taken in favor of the p)aintiif/$ubject to the opinion of the court as to the Ill.W, upon the following agreed state oHacta: , "(1) It is .admittedthat the plaintiff has a good record title to the land deaeI'ibed in 'the writ; which is pin't'of a larger tract, containing, in aU about 400 acres, purchased by and conveyed to plaintiff in 1864. ' "(2) That the plaintiff is a corporation, organized under the laws of New York, in the year 1864, under the provisions 'of an act of the legislature of 1Tbe commonwealth alone can take advantage of the want of capacity in a corporationto take and bold la:\ld.. T. Canal Co., (Pa.)I,iAtl. Rep. 751; Railroad Co. v. Lewis, (Iowa,) 4 N. W. Rep. 842. . When B corporation is incompetent by its cbarter'totakea legal:titlll to real estate, a conveyance to it is not void, but only voidable, and tbe sovereign only can object. It is valid until assailed in a direct proceedina for thatpurpO,se., Land Co. v. Bushnell, (Neb.) 8 N. W. Rep. 389.' .. ' . · . . .. , . , Restrictions imposed by the cbarter of a corporation upon the amount of,property that it may,holcicanDot be taken advantage of collaterally by private persons, but only in direct proceedinj:{!! by tbe state. Jones v. Habersham,2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 336. Where a,foreign corporation has the power to acquire real estate, so far as necessary for business,ltse,cquiSltionofrealty cannot be assailed in a collateral proceediug as aD act ultra Will' :811ch: a question can be raised by the state only, and ia a direct lng. Barnes v. Suddard, (Ill.) 7 N. E. Rep. 477.