Co. &c. V. be more than one plaintiff, and more than one de- HOPE INS fendant. So also there could be no jurisdiction if one of the parties was a woman, because a woman BOARDMAN, cannot be a citizen; which is a term applicable only to a male. It is not necessary that a person should be a citizen to commit treason: it may be committed by an alien. Judge Jay, as an argument in favour of the suability of the states, urged that a corporation could undoubtedly be sued in the courts of the United States. * THE COURT having, in the case of The Bank of the United States v. Deveaux et al. decided that the right of a corporation to litigate in the courts of the United States depended upon the character (as to citizenship) of the members which compose the body corporate, and that a body corporate as such cannot be a citizen, within the meaning of the constitution, reversed the judgment, for want of jurisdiction in the court below. A similar question of jurisdiction being involved in the case of The Bank of the United States v Deveaux et al., and the counsel in that case expressing a wish to be heard before this case should be decided, the court agreed to hear both cases at the same time; the further arguments in this case were consequently blended with those in the other. THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES v. DE- ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Georgia. A corporation aggregate, composed of The declaration, or petition, as it is there called, citizens of one was as follows: District of Georgia. To the honourable the judges of the sixth cir a BANK U. S. court of the United States, in and for the district V. DEVEAUX. Where the ju courts of the aforesaid. The petition of The President, Directors and Com risdiction of the pany, of the Bank of the United States, which said United States bank was established under an act of congress entidepends, not tled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the on the charac- Bank of the United States," passed the 25th day of ties, but upon February, 1791, showeth, ter of the par the nature of the case, the circuit courts risdiction from the case of a same state from different states. conferred on That Peter Deveaux and Thomas Robertson, both derive no ju- of the city of Savannah, Esquires, have endamaged the judiciary your petitioners in the sum of three thousand dollars, act, except in for this, to wit, that the said Thomas Robertson, then controversy acting under authority from the said Peter Deveaux, between citi on the 20th day of April, 1807, at Savannah, in the zens of the district aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this elaiming lands honourable court, with force and arms entered into under grants the house and premises of your petitioners, at Savannah aforesaid, and then and there seized, took, and No right is detained, two boxes (the goods and chattels of your the bank, by petitioners) containing each one thousand dollars in its act of in silver, then and there found in the possession of your corporation, to sue in the fede- petitioners, and being of the value of two thousand ral courts. and four dollars, and carried the same away, and A corporation aggregate converted and disposed thereof to their own use, and cannot, in its other wrongs to your petitioners then and there did against the peace of the district, and to the great damage of your petitioners, therefore your petitioners say they are injured, and have sustained damage to the value of three thousand dollars, and therefore they bring suit. And your petitioners aver that they are citizens of the State of Pennsylvania, and the said Peter Deveaux and Thomas Robertson are citizens of the State of Georgia. Wherefore your petitioners pray process, &c. corporate ca pacity, be eitizen. a And the said Peter and Thomas, by R. L. their attorney, come and defend the force and injury, when, &c. and pray judgment of the declaration aforesaid, because they say that the sixth circuit court of the United States ought not to have and V. DEVEAUX. entertain jurisdiction of the said declaration, and the BANK U. S. matters therein contained, for that the said president, directors and company of the bank of the United States aver themselves to be a body politic and corporate, and that in that capacity these defendants say they cannot sue or be sued, plead or be impleaded in this honourable court, by any thing contained in the constitution or laws of the same United States, and this they are ready to verify; wherefore, for want of jurisdiction in this behalf, they pray judgment, and their costs, &c. To this plea there was a demurrer and joinder, and judgment in favour of the defendants upon the demurrer. Binney, for the plaintiffs in error. In the year 1805 the State of Georgia passed a law to tax the Branch Bank of the United States, at Savannah. The bank having refused to pay the tax, the state officers entered their office of discount and deposit, and took and carried away two thousand dollars, for which the bank of the United States brought their action of trespass in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Georgia. The plea to the jurisdiction does not deny that the plaintiffs were citizens of the State of Pennsylvania, but relies upon the fact that the plaintiffs sue as a body corporate. The record presents two questions. 1. Whether a body politic, composed exclusively of citizens of one state, can sue a citizen of another state in the circuit court of the United States. 2. Whether the bank of the United States has not a peculiar right to sue in that court. The objections to this right are two. 1. That the individual character of the members BANK U.S. is so wholly lost in that of the corporation, that the court cannot take notice of it. V. DEVEAUX. 2. That the suit being in a corporate capacity, it is impossible by the pleadings to bring into question the fact of citizenship of the individual members. The answer to the first objection embraces three propositions. 1. That in many instances, the character, situation and attributes of the members of a corporation, are brought into notice in judicial proceedings against the corporate body. 2. That even if it were otherwise, still the spirit of the federal constitution and laws demands, that the citizenship of the members should be noticed, as well to affect the question of jurisdiction, as for other purposes. 3. That the constant practice in the circuit courts, and the tacit approbation of this court, have sanctioned their jurisdiction in such cases. 1. What is a corporation aggregate? It is a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special name, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by the policy of the law, with the capacity of acting in several respects as an individual. 1 Kyd. on Corp. 13. To say that it is an "ens civile, a jus habendi et agendi, an ens rationis, a mere metaphysical being, and that it rests only in consideration and intendment of law," are terms calculated to mislead the understanding. A corporation is composed of natural persons; it is a visible, tangible body; and although the whole collectively have faculties in law which the individuals have not, yet it does not follow that the whole body may not be seen, examined, sifted, and contemplated, as any other body of individuals having V. DEVEAUX. collectively a particular faculty. 11 Co. 98. b. The BANK U.S. A When the president, directors and company of a bank are assembled, the corporation is visible. If all the members should die, or surrender their charter to the king, the corporation would be extinct. corporation must exist by means of natural persons; and the law will examine whether the natural persons claiming to be members have all the necessary qualifications according to their charter. If any individual member does not possess them, he is to be disfranchised. If a suit were brought against a corporation it would be a decisive bar that all the members were dead. A corporation as a "faculty" has no "local habitation," though it has a "name." If it is an ens rationis only, it cannot be said to reside anywhere; and it certainly occupies nothing; yet habitancy, residence, and occupation may be predicated of a corporation aggregate. The residence and inhabitancy of the particular members have been taken into consideration, and have been deemed to impart these characters to the corporation. Lord Coke, in his exposition of the statute of 22 Hen. VIII. c. 5. concerning the repairing of decayed bridges in highways, (2 Inst. 697. 703.) says, "the persons to be charged by this act are comprehended under this only word "inhabitants." "Every corporation and body politic residing in any county," &c. or having any lands or tenements in any shire," &c." quæ propriis manibus et sumptibus possident et habent, are said to be inhabitants there within the purview of this statute." In the case of Rex v. Gardner, Cowp. 83. it was decided that a corporation aggregate was an inhabitant or occupier of Vol. V. I 1 |