Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/558

 545 FEDERAL REPORTER. �that it is also "a citizen" of Kentucky, and alleges its incor- poration by that state, while, on the other hand, the petition for removal does not aver that the defendant corporation was incorporated by the laws of Louisiana, but simply that it was and is "a citizen" of that state, nor does it otherwise appear by the pleadings that the defendant corporation was ohar- tered by the laws of Louisiana. �.; Whether the case falls within the principle of the case of the Lafayette Ins. Co. v. Frenck, 18 How. 404, or that of the Coving- ton Draw-bridge Go. v. Shepherd, 20 How. 227, 1 need not stop to ihquire, because no objection is taken to the defective aver- ment, and the case having been submitted without reference to it in the briefs of counsel, it is, I presume, intentionally Kraived. �The fàcts, then, are that, by the laws of Louisiana and Mississippi, a railroad Company was chartered and operating a line of road from New Orleans to Jackson, Mississippi, and another corporation, under the laws of Mississippi and Ten- nessee, was operating a line of road from Jackson, Missis- sippi, to Jackson, Tennessee, and thence on to the southem line of Kentucky. By an act of the general assembly of Kentucky, approved March 18, 1872, c. 585, entitled "An ^ct to authorize the Mississippi Central Eailroad Company to extend their road into and through the state of Kentucky, " the said Corporation was "deelared a body politic and corpo- rate," etc., and authorized to construct and operate its road through Kentucky to the Ohio river, or some convenient point on the Mississippi river. In November, 1877, the two corporations before mentioned were, by appropriate legisla- tion in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee, Consolidated into one; and by an act approved March 11, 1878, c. 396, the general assembly of Kentucky ratified the former act and the consolidation, and chartered the new Consolidated Com- pany in Kentucky. �In the case of Blackhurn v. Selma E. Co., in the western district of Tennessee, (MSS. December 20, 1879,) where the question was whether the legislation of Tennessee in regard to a corporation chartered by Mississippi and Alabama merely ����