Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/560

 548 yEDEBAL BKPOBTBE. �corporation composed of citizens of another state has the efifect to create a corporation not composed of citizens of Ken- tuoky, we must conclusively presume that they are. Railroad V. Letson, 2 How. 497; Marshall v. Railroad, 16 How. 314; Muller V, Dows, supra. �This fiction has been repeatedly resorted to in support of the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and must, necessarily, be as efficaeious to defeat it in a case like this. The fact that these presumptive citizens of Kentncky are, by like pre- sumption, at the same time citizens of Tennessee, Missis- sippi, and Louisiana, by reason of charters granted in those states, cannot alter the principle, The plaintif here is a citizen of Kentxicky, and the defendants (a corporation) are, by this conclusive presumption, citizens of the same state, and, therefore, the conditions required by the constitution to give us jurisdiction do not exist. Neither can the fact that these ineorporators, owning charters in several states, bave authority of law to conduot their business as a single or Con- solidated corporation change this resuit. In each state, by operation of this presumption, they are conclusively held to be citizens of that state, and of that state alone. This seems to me to be the principle that underlies the question, and to be conclusive against the jurisdiction. �It is said, in the case of the Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters, 519, that a corporation can have no legal existence eut of the bounds of the sovereignty by which it is created. It exists only in contemplation of law and by force of the law, and where that law ceases to operate the corporation can have no existence. It must dwell in the place of its existence. And this was reiterated in Marshall v. Railroad, supra, 16 How. 328. It may contract, sue, and be sued elsewhere, but when we corne to the question of its residence or habitat, it must be taken to be in the state which created it. Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331; Wheeling v. Baltimore, 1 Hughes, 90. Eeviewing the decisions on the subject, the circuit court of Indiana held that the fact of consolidation cannot oust the jurisdiction of the federal courts in either state creating the corporation, provided the adverse party be a citizen of another ����