Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/811

BTOUX V. SIOUX OITY & PACIFIO B. 00. 797 �tion, it is not sufficient; for althoiigh the two corporations may be composed of the same persons, yet they are in law, for the purpose of suing and being sued, separate and distinct. It is not impossible that the lowa corporation might have kept an office and agents in Nebraska at the time this suit was commenced, but, upon the proofs adduced upon this hearing, I conclude that the person served was an agent of the Nebraska corporation, and not of the lowa corporation. At all events, it has not been shown that he was the agent of the lowa Company in such a sense that service upon him in Nebraska would be a sufficient service upon that company. The act of 1875, defining the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, (18 St. 470,) provides that — �"No civil suit shall be brought l5efore either of said courts against any per- son by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof lie is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving such process or commencing such proceedings," etc. �It has been held that a corporation created by one state may con- sent to be sued in another, in consideration of its being permitted by law to exercise therein its corporate powers and privileges. Eailroad Go. V. Harris, 12 Wall. 65; Ex Parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369; Knott V. Ins. Go. 2 Woods, 479. But the legislature of Nebraska, instead of providing that foreign railroad corporations may extend their roads into that state, upon condition that they will consent to be sued there, has seen fit to provide that such corporations shall, by extending their lines of railroad into the state, and by filing copies of their articles of incorporation with the secretary of state, become domestic corporations, with all the powers and franchises of other state corporations. Such corporations, therefore, being citizens of the state of Nebraska — corporations of the state — can be sued by citizens of Nebraska only in the state courts. It may be that plain- tiff has a cause of action against the lowa corporation, but it is not one that can be prosecuted in this court upon process served upon an agent engaged in the operation of the extended line of railroad within the state of Nebraska, and not shown to be an agent of the lowa corporation. It is not pretended that there are two lines of railroad in Nebraska, one of which is operated by the lowa corporation and the other by the Nebraska corporation; but, on the contrary, it is conceded that the railroad in Nebraska is simply an extension of the lowa road, and upon the admitted facts, without more, we must con- clude that the person upon whom service was made was employed in the operation of the line in Nebraska, and as the agent of the Nebraska ��� �