Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/473

N. & L. B. COBP.'y. e:& li. R. CORP. 4259 �Consolidated, do not become a single corporation, for all purposes ; but while they may for some jpiiifposes be treiited as a single cor- poration, yet for other purposes they remain separate and distinct corporations. ; ; , �In this case it seems that the defendant eorpoi'ation might go into New Hampshire and there sue the plaintifp, as a New Hampshire corporation, in the federal court, although it could ndt bring such suit in the district of Massachusetts against the New Hampahire corporation, because »o service upon the New Hampshire corpora- tion as such could be got in thia district, if for no other reason. It has been determined- by Judge Lowell that in soine cases non-resident corporations may be served with process from United States courts in other districts than those in which they were chartered, and where they are found to be doing business, or domiciled. But this rule would not, .we suppose, estend to a case like the present. �If the defendant could sue the plaintiff in the federal court ior NeW Hampshire, notwithetanding the fact of the plaintif being chartered under the laws of both states, thero would seem td be no good reasbn why the plaintiff, olaiming under its New Hampshire ■chai-ter,'8hould not be allowed to sue the defendant in the federai •court for -Massa-' chusetts, as it would be impossible for tho defendant in ehch'case to deny the title of the plaintiff as predicated upon' the New Hampshire charter, or to deprive the plaintiff of the benefit of its New Hamp- shire citizenship thus acquired. i ■ :■ | �I am aware that a different conclusion seems to have been reacbed i �in a case* decided in the eastem district of Penrisylvania, but am not ! �able to concur in the views taken in that case. The def ehdant's plea' ; �to the jurisdiction is therefore overruled. ^ ; ■ ! �*The case here referfed to is Jolmion y.'mi., Wil. <t- B. B. M., and is briefly re- ported in 1 Am. Law Kev. 457. , ' , ' ��� �