Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/561

 tJPHOFF V. CHICAGIO, ST. L. & N. 0. B. CO. 549 �state than that in which the suit is brought, as I understand the case. St. Louis Railroad v. IndianapoUs Railroad, 12 CM. Leg. News, 73. And in Pennsylvania the circuit court re- manded a cause, sought to be removed under ciroumstances as to jurisdiction, precisely like the case now under consid- eration. Johnson v. Railroad, 1 Am. L. Bev. (N. S.) 457. �It may be a test of the soundness of the judgment here rendered to consider whether, under its operation, it would be competent for this consdlidated corporation to ignore its Ken- tucky existence, apd, describing itsdf as a corporation under the laws of Louisiana, sue a citizen of Kentueky in this court, or whether a citizen of Kentueky, ignoring the Kentueky stat- utes, might sue it in this court as a Louisiana corporation "found within this district;" and, if either be admissible, why the same right to choose the capacity in which it shall conduct the litigation does not exist in favor of the right of removal when sued in the state courts ; and, as the plaintiff recovering a judgment in this case may seek to conelude this corporation in an action on the judgment in any of the other states wherein it has been chartered, it is not without force to say that while the plaintiff is suing a corporation of Ken- tueky, she is also, as a fact, suing a corporation Of three other states as well. �That there are perplexities connected with this subject not resolved by any authoritative decision will occur to any one who examines the cases, but until they are so resolved we can only leave them to be ruled upon as they arise in actual practice. We can only say now that while there are no limitations upon the plenary jurisdiction of the state courts in which home and foreign corporations doing business in the state are alike suable by ail persons, our jurisdiction depends solely upon the citizenship of the parties, and they can only submit to whatever results corne of this limitation and tiieir necessities. �There is nothing in the process, petition, or other part of the record of the state court in this case that shows anything whatever as to the citizenship of the parties. The plaintiff is not there described, nor need she be, as a citizen ����