Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/161

 OBANOE NAT. BANK ». TBAVEE. 149 �to be concluBITely presumed td be a suit by or against citi- zens of the state under whose laws such corporation was formed; and therefore it is deemed a citizen of the state ■which created it. 0. a. M. Ry. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 295 ; Cowlcs V. Mercer Co. 7 Wall. 121. Strictly speaking, then, the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States, but not of any state. Still, the plaintiff, though organized under a law of the United States, is by such organization and law "located" in the state of Massachusetts, and by a parity of reasoning its stockhclders may be presumed to be citizens of said state, and the corporation be entitled to sue and be sued as a citi- zen of Massachusetts. This is the conclmsion reached by Mr. Juatiee Blatchf ord, af ter a thorough investigation of the eub-' ject, in the Manaf'rs N. B. of Chicago 'v. Black, 8 Batchf. 187- And, doubtless, the plaintiff is a foreign corporation, within the mischief sought to be remedied by the act of Ooto'ber 24^ 1864J supra, and ifi'it is held ta be a citizen of' Massachusetts it must be 80 regarded. : '! • ■ < �But, admitting tfaiS) I do not think the local atatute-should be construed ,80 as to^ preveht a' foreign corporation frotu maintaining a suit in the state court, and it is very'clear that the state cannot prevent such corporation frommaintainittg a suit in this court. Upon the showing- in the bill the .'^laatt- tiff is entitled to sue in this orthe state court. As'thesecoh^ tracts were made in 1877, the act of Octdber 21, 1880, (Sess. Laws, 6, entitled "An act to establish and protect the right^ of married women, ") which is supposed ' to have altogether relieved the wife from the "disabilities" or protection, as the case may be, of coverture, does not affect this case. By marriage, at common law, the property of the wife became that of the husband — the personalty absolutely, and the realty during the marriage. But, in time, the doctrine was established in equity that the wife could hold property to her sepaiate use and benefit, and this has, in effect, become the fundamental law of this state. Or. Const. art. 15, § 5. With the capacity to acquire and hold property to her separate use, she was allowed to have the power to dispose of the same as if she were unmarried, unless the instrument or means ��� �