Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/805

 FARGO V. L., N. A. & 0. BY. CO. 793 �The legislature of Massachusetts passed a statute which imposed upon each are, marine, and fire and marine insur- ance company, incorporated or associated under the laws of any government or state other thaa one of the United States, a tax of 4 per cent, upon ail premiuma charged or received on contracts made in that state for insurance of property. With this statute in force, the state of Massachusetts filpd a bill in its supreme judicial court against the Liverpool & London Life & Pire Insurance Company to collect a tax of 4 per cent, on its premiums upon contracts made in Massachu- setts, and to restrain the company from doing further. busi- ness until the tax was paid. Payment of the tax was resisted on the ground that the defendant was an association pf nat- ural persons, under certain deeds of settlement and especial acts of parliament, and not a corporation. In these acts of parliament, conferring privileges on the company, it was declared not to be the intention to make it a corpora- tion. The supreme court of Massachusetts gave a decree against the company. In afiBrming the case on appeal the supreme court of the United States held (10 Wallace, 566) that, as the law of corporations is understood in this country, the Liverpool & London Life & Pire Insurance Company was exercising corporate franchises in Massachusetts, and that it was liable as a corporation to pay the tax under the statute of that state. �In the case of Westcott v. Fargo, 61 N. T. 542, it was held that under section 3, art. 8, of the constitution of New York, and under the legislation of that state, already alluded to, the president of the American Express Company was to be deemed a corporation sole for the purpose of suing and being sued in the courts of that state. The reasons which induced the supreme court to hold that, for the purposes of federal jurisdiction, corporations are to be regarded as citizens of the states whose creatures they are, call with equal force for a similar ruling in favor of joint-stock companies which are organized under the laws of New York. It is no less conven- ient for the public than it is for these companies that they should be allowed to sue and be sued in the name of the presi- ��� �