Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States,87 nor do they come within the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits the abridgment of such privileges and immunities.88 When an existing railroad corporation,

Winn v. Wabash R. Co. (U. S. C. C.), 118 Fed. 55; First National Bank v. Bridgeport Trust Co. (U. S. C. C.). 117 Fed. 969; Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. v. Hibbs, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1899, 78 S. W. 1116; Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. v. Whitworth, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2044, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 439, 73 S. W. 766, 75 S. W. 849; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Cook, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2410, 67 S. W. 383; Allison v. Southern Ry. Co., 129 N. C. 336, 40 S. E. 91; Calvert v. Southern Ry. Co., 64 S. C. 139, 41 S. E. 963, aff'g 36 S. E. 750.

Art. IV, § 2.

8 United States: Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557, 19 Sup. Ct. 281, 43 L. ed. 552; Norfolk & Western Rd. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 136 U. S. 114, 34 L. ed. 394, 10 Sup. Ct. 958; Pembina Consol. Silver Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. 737, 31 L. ed. 650; Philadelphia Fire Assn. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110, 7 Sup. Ct. 108, 30 L. ed. 342; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. (77 U. S.)566, 19 L. ed. 1029; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (75 U. S.) 168, 19 L. ed. 357; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. (38 U. S.) 519, 10 L. ed. 274; Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch (9 U. S.), 61, 3 L. ed. 38; Kirben v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 145 Fed. 288, 292, per Dayton, Dist. J.; Berry v. Mobile Life Ins. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 1,358; See Ohio & Mississippi Rd. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black. (66 U. S.) 286, 17 L. ed. 130. Compare Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston Rd. Co. v.

Letson, 2 How. (43 U. S.) 497, 11 L. ed. 553.

Alabama: American Union Teleg. Co. v. Western Union Teleg. Co., 67 Ala. 26, 42 Am. Rep. 90.

Delaware: State v. Delaware & Atl. Teleg. & Teleph. Co., 7 Houst. (Del.) 269, 31 Atl. 714.

Illinois: Cincinnati Mut. Health Assur. Co. v. Rosenthal, 55 Ill. 85, 8 Am. Rep. 626; Ducat v. Chicago, 48 Ill. 172, 95 Am. Dec. 529.

Indiana: Schmidt v. Indianapolis (Ind., 1907), 80 N. E. 632; Farmers' & Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Narrah, 47 Ind. 236.

Kentucky: Merchants National Bank v. Ford, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 558, 99 S. W. 260; Commonwealth v. Milton, 12 B. Mon. (51 Ky.) 212, 54 Am. Dec. 331; Woodward v. Commonwealth, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 670, 7 S. W. 613.

New Jersey: Tatem v. Wright, 23 N. J. L. 429.

New York: People v. Imlay, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 68.

Ohio: Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Mayer, 28 Ohio St. 521.

Rhode Island: State v. Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co., 18 R. I. 16, 25 Atl. 246.

Virginia: Slaughter v. Commonwealth, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 767.

While the members of a corporation are, for purposes of suit by or against it in courts of the United States, to be conclusively presumed to be citizens of State creating it, the corporation itself is not a citizen within the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution that the citizens of each State shall be

2

organized under the laws of one State, is authorized under the laws of another State, to extend its road into the latter, it does not become a citizen of the latter State by exercising this authority, unless the statute giving this permission must necessarily be construed as creating a new corporation of the State which grants this permission.89

entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the United States. Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239, 19 Sup. Ct. 165, 43 L. ed. 432.

A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and cannot maintain a suit in a court of the United States against the citizens of a

different State from that by which it was chartered, unless the persons who compose the corporate body are all citizens of that State. Ohio & Miss. Ry. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Bl. (66 U. S.) 286, 17 L. ed. 130.

Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290, 6 Sup. Ct. 1094, 30 L. ed. 83.

CHAPTER VI.

NATURE OF VARIOUS CORPORATIONS.

68. Agricultural

Societies-State § 80. Ferries-Ferry Company.
81. Fire Engine Company.

Board of Agriculture-Ag-
ricultural College.

69. Banks.

70. Bridge Companies.

71. Building and Loan Associations.

72. Canal Companies.

73. Colleges-State University. 74. Common Carriers.

75. Drainage Companies-Drainage Constitutional LawPolice Power.

76. Electric Light, Heat and Power
Companies.

77. Electric Light, Heat and Power
Companies-When a Man-
ufacturing" Company.
78. Electric Light, Heat and Power
Companies-When not &
"Manufacturing" Company.

79. Express Companies.

82. Gas Companies-Public Service Corporation.

83. Gas Natural Gas Compa

nies.

84. Gas Company-Natural Gas
Company When "Manu-
facturing" Company.

85. Heating Corporation.
86. Hospital Corporation.
87. Insurance Companies.
88. Irrigation Companies-Irriga-
tion Districts.

89. Levee Districts-Levee Boards.
90. Log Driving or Boom Corpora-
tion.

91. Manufacturing Corporations.
92. Market Company.
93. Medical College.
94. Park Association.
95. Plank Roads.

§68. Agricultural Societies-State Board of AgricultureAgricultural College.-Under an Alabama decision an agricultural society is a public corporation.1 It is also so under an Illinois case. Under an Iowa decision it is held to be in no sense a corporation for pecuniary profit, but an agency of the State which exists for the sole purpose of promoting the public interests in the business of agriculture. But in another case in the same State it is declared that the objects of an agricultural society may be public and yet it is essentially a

1 Dillard v. Webb, 55 Ala. 468. 'Livingston County Agricultural Society v. Hunter, 110 Ill. 155.

3 Hern v. Iowa State Agricultural Soc., 91 Iowa, 97, 98, 58 N. W. 1092, 24 L. R. A. 655.

private corporation even though it is not organized for pecuniary profit. So in Kentucky such societies are private corporations. In Michigan, they are said to be quasi-public in their nature. In Maine such a society is an aggregate corporation as distinguished from quasi-corporations and may be liable in its corporate capacity for its negligent acts. Under a Minnesota decision it appeared that a state agricultural society was not, under the complaint therein and the laws, shown to be a public corporation organized for the sole purpose of discharging a governmental function, and it was held that annual contributions by the State did not make it a public corporation for the sole purpose of discharging governmental functions so as to relieve it from its negligence. In Nebraska these societies are declared not to be corporations within the ordinary meaning of the term, but are rather agencies adopted by the State for the purpose of promoting the interests of agriculture and manufacturing. In a North Carolina case they seem to be considered as public corporations.10 But under an Ohio decision they are not public agencies of the State. They are the result of the voluntary association of the persons composing them, and although their purposes are public in a certain sense as conducing to the public welfare yet all private corporations are for a public purpose in the sense that they accomplish some public good or are of some public benefit.11 A state board of agriculture, created by statute as a body corporate with perpetual succession, is, in Indiana, a private

[blocks in formation]

State v. Robinson, 35 Neb. 401, 53 N. W. 213, 17 L. R. A. 383.

10 State v. Stovall, 103 N. C. 416, 8 S. E. 900.

11 Dunn v. Agricultural Soc., 46 Ohio St. 93, 99, 18 N. E. 496, 15 Am. St. Rep. 556, 1 L. R. A. 754.

County Agricultural Societies are corporations for public purposes. Stewart v. Hardin County Agricultural Soc. Comm'rs (Dist. Ct.), 7 Am. Law Rec. 668, 6 Ohio Dec. 751.

corporation although the public has an interest therein, and the State has voluntarily aided it by contributions and appropriations, and no shares of stock are issued and held by trustees or private individuals.12 In Wyoming it is held that an agricultural college which is subject to state visitation under the statute of its creation and incorporation is a public corporation and that the State is not prohibited from repealing the creative act, even though property had been devised or bequeathed in trust for the benefit of such college.13

§ 69. Banks.-A bank is a public corporation where the stock is exclusively owned by the government.14 It is also held in an Ohio case that a bank is a public institution, a public corporation created solely for public and not for private purposes, and is subject to public control to extend or revoke its privileges according to the emergencies of public necessity or policy.15 In a New Jersey case it is declared that banks of

12 Downing v. Indiana State Board of Agriculture, 129 Ind. 443, 28 N. E. 123, 12 L. R. A. 664. The loaning of money to such board by the State was held to amount to a legislative construction of its charter as being a private corporation.

13 State ex. rel. Agricultural College v. Irvine, 14 Wyo. 318, 373-376, 84 Pac. 90, aff'd Wyoming Agricultural College v. Irvine, 206 U. S. 278. 14 Tinsman v. Belvidere Delaware Rd. Co., 26 N. J. L. 148, 172, 69 Am. Dec. 595, quoting from 2 Kent's Comm. 305.

to appropriate private property without the consent of the owners?" and in conclusion the court also said: "It may, therefore, be declared, that the Piqua Branch (Bank) and all other companies organized under the act of February 24, 1845, are public corporations-created for public purposes, and subject to the emergencies of public necessity or policy, as declared, from time to time, by the legislature. That the charters of such corporations may be repealed or altered without the consent of the corporators was admitted by all the judges in 15 Knoup v. Piqua Bank, 1 Ohio the Dartmouth College case, and is St. 613, 609, 619, 621, 622, per Cor- established by many other authoriwin, J., who said: "But banking is ties. Terrel v. Taylor, 9 Cranch (13 no more a private business, certainly U. S.), 43, 3 L. ed. 650; Town of Marithan making a railroad, or a turnpike, etta v. Fearing, 4 Ohio, 427; People and yet, when they are made, in vir- v. Morris, 13 Wend. (N. Y) 325." tue of a franchise of eminent domain, The case of Dartmouth College v. the corporations are public corpora- Woodward, 4 Wheat. (17 U. S.) 518, tions. For how otherwise, I repeat, 4 L. ed. 629, above referred to, held, could the legislature authorize them however, that the charter granted to

« AnteriorContinuar »