Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/32

 '20 ■■ fedbSa'L BEP'ora'er.. ■' �Micliigan; and afterwards there was a consolidation between railroad companies created under the laws of lUiûois, Indi- ana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, the resuit of which was that a Consolidated railroad company was cre- ated, called the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Eailway Company, whieh owns and operates a line of raih-oad frona Bnffalo, in the state of New York, to Chicago, in the state of Illinois. �The property in controversy, being certain real estate in the county of Cook, was conveyed to one of the consolidated corporations created between the date of the original corpora-^ tien of the state of Illinois, and the consolidated corporation which was the resuit of the legislation of the different states referred to. On September 13, 1880, the Chicago & West- ■ern Indiana Eailroad Coi^npany, a coiporation of the state of Illinois, filed its original bill in the superior court of Cook ■county against the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Eail- way Company. On November 22, 1880, the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Eailway Company filed its cross-bill alleg- ing thàt it was a consolidated corporation composed of differ- ent corporations organized and chartered under the laws of the states of New, York; Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. On November 27, 1880, the Chicago & Western Indiana Eailroad Company filed its answer to the cross-bill deiiying that the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Eailway Compariy was a consolidated corporation, as alleged in the cross-bill, but aver- ring that it was a corporation of the state of Illinois, and that it was originally incorporated under the general incorporation law of 1849, and that subsequently it was consolidated with the other corporations heretofore mentioned. On the twenty- ninth of November, 1880, the Lake Shore & Michigan South- ern Eailway Company filed its petition and bond and afSdavit of local prejudice, in the superior court, alleging that the eomplainant was a citizen of the state of Illinois, and that the petitioner was a citizen of the state of New York, and asking for the iremoval of the cause to this court. On the same day the Chicago & Western Indiana Eailroad Company jiled an answer to said petition, averring that the original ����