Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/803

 FARGO V. L., N. A. & 0. ET. 00. 791 �tion, or removal of such officers ; and a judgment against the president or treasurer, as such, is not a lien upon their indi- vidual property, but execution is levied upon the property of the Company only, the shareholders being liable individually after an ineffectuai effort to thus collect the debt from the Company. These are privileges that are not enjoyed by nat- ural persons or partnerships. While these oompanies have no common seal, it is difficult, in other respects, to distin- guish them from corporations. They are organi&ed under general laws very much as incorporations are now usually or- ganized. Their stock is divided up into sbares and eold on the stock boards, just as the stock of corporations is divided up and sold. �Corporations are artificial persons — ideal creatures of the state — and so are New York joint-stock companies. It is of no consequence that in the statutes under which these com- panies are organized they are called "unincorporated associ- ations." In determining -what such institutions really are, regard is to be had to their essential attributes rather than to any mere name by which they may be known. , If the essen- tial franchises of a corporation are conferred upon a., joint- stock Company, it is none the less a corporatiop for being called something else. Section 3, art. 8, of the constitution of New York declares that "the term corporation, as used in this article, shall be construed to include associations and joint-stock companies, ha ving any of the powers and privi- leges of corporations not possessed by individuals or part- nerships, and ail corporations shall have the right to sue, ^nd shall be subject to being sued, in ail courts in like cases as natural persons." It is urged, however, by counsel for the defendant that the statute which confers the right upon these companies to sue and be sued in the name of the president or treasurer relates to the remedy only, and that it <jan ha,ve no extraterritorial effect. �Experience demonstrated the usefulness of these institu- tions in carrying on trade and business, and convenience required that they should be allowed to sue and be subject to suit in the name of an individual who should repreeent the ��� �