Where the foreign corporation, subsequent to the injury which caused the suit, became incorporated in the State where the injury was done, it was held that, for the purposes of the suit, it should be treated as a foreign corporation.24 Where there is a merger, one corporation remaining in existence and the other being absorbed in the same, the company continues to be a citizen of the same State as that of the former.2 25 In case of a consolidation of corporations chartered by different States; if the consolidation creates a new corporate entity and is made under the laws of a single State, it seems that the new company must be treated as a citizen of such State alone.26 If such consolidation, however, is made under the laws of both the States, then, it has been held: that the consolidated corporation is to be treated. as a citizen of both, and when sued in either State by a citizen thereof, it has no right of removal; 27 but that the District Court ton R. R. Co. v. Alabama, 107 U. S. 23 Patch v. Wabash Railroad Co., 24 Mowery v. Southern Ry. Co., 129 N. C. 351, 40 S. E. 88. 25 Lee v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 150 Fed. 775; where the fact that the transaction left a large part of the capital stock of one of the companies outstanding and all that of the other surrendered and cancelled; was held, to be evidence of the intent that the former company should continue in existence. 26 Westheider v. Wabash Railroad Co., 115 Fed. 840. There the former corporations conveyed all their property to the new company, and the agreement of consolidation was recorded in the offices of the Secretary of State and recorders of the different counties where one of the railroads was situated in Illinois; but the new corporation was Held to have been incorporated under the laws of Ohio and to be a citizen thereof, and not a citizen of Illi nois. In Patch v. Wabash Railroad Co., 207 U. S. 277, 52 L, ed. 204; Winn v. Wabash Railroad Co., 118 Fed. 55, it was held, that the same consolidated company remained, in each of the States where one of its constituents was situated, a citizen thereof. For a case deciding which of two corporations of the same name was the plaintiff's employer see Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Darrow, C. C. A., 250 Fed. 581. 27 Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444, 24 L. ed. 207; Patch v. Wabash Railroad Co., 207 U. S. 277, 52 L. ed, 204; Chicago & W. I. R. Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 5 Fed. 19, 10 Biss. 122; Johnson v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 9 Fed. 6; Paul v. Baltimore & O. & C. R. Co., 44 Fed. 513; Goodwin v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 124 Fed. 358; Goodwin v. Boston & Maine R. R., 127 Fed. 986; Wasley v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 147 Fed. 608; Cummins v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 193 Fed. 238; Case v. Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co., 225 Fed. 862. But see Nashua & Lowell R. R. Cor of the United States has jurisdiction of a suit against it in one of these States by a citizen of another,28 A general law enabling foreign corporations of a certain class to transact business in a State upon compliance with certain conditions, or a special enabling law to such effect, does not prevent a corporation which complies with the same from removing a suit against it because of a difference of citizenship between it and a citizen of such a State.29 The appointment of an attorney in a foreign State with a consent that process served upon him shall bind the corporation; 30 or the operation of a railroad in another State under a lease,31 poration v. Boston & Lowell R. R. Corporation, 136 U. S. 356, 34 L. ed. The Boston & Albany Railroad Company has been held to be a corporation of both Massachusetts and New York so as to justify the assessment of a transfer tax on its shares in each State. Moody v. Shaw, 173 Mass. 375; Matter of Cooley, 113 App. Div. (N. Y.) 388. 28 Marshall v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 16 Howard 314, 14 L. ed. 953; Wheeling v. City of Baltimore, Fed. Cas. No. 17,502 (1 Hughes, 90); Williamson v. Krohn, 66 Fed. 655, 13 C. C. A. 668, 31 U. S. App. 325; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Meeh, C. C. A., 69 Fed. 753, 30 L.R.A. 250; Smith v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 96 Fed. 504; Winn v. Wabash R. Co., 118 Fed. 55; Wasley v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 147 Fed. 608. 29 Owen v. New York Life Ins. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 10,631 (1 Hughes, 322); Scott v. Texas Land & Cattle Co., 41 Fed. 225; Amsden v. Norwich Union Fire Ins. Soc., 44 Fed. 515; Amsden v. Traders' Ins. Co. of Chicago, 44 Fed. 515; Goodloe v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co., 117 Fed. 348; Morton v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 105 Mass. 141, 7 Am. Rep. 505; Fisk v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. (New York), 53 Barb. 472; Newhall v. Atlantic, etc., Ins. Co., 8 Phila. 106. 30 Lee v. Aetna Ins. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 8,181; Hatch v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 6,204 (6 Blatchf. 105); Owen v. New York Life Ins. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 10,631 (1 Hughes, 322); Fales v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. 673; Scott v. Texas Land & Cattle Co., 41 Fed. 225; Amsden v. Norwich Union Fire Ins. Soc., 44 Fed. 515; Amsden v. Traders' Ins. Co. of Chicago, 44 Fed. 515; Morton v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 105 Mass. 141, 7 Am. Rep. 505; Fisk v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. (N. Y.), 53 Barb. 472; Stevens v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 41 N. Y. 149; Newhall v. Atlantic, etc., Ins. Co., 8 Phila. 106; Fox v. American Casualty Ins. & Security Co. (Pennsylvania), 12 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 207, 2 Pa. Dist. R. 158. 31 Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5, 26 L. ed. 643; Callahan v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 11 Fed. 536; Crane v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 20 Fed. 402; affirming Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Crane, 113 U. S. 424, 28 L. ed. 1064; Wilkinson v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 22 Fed. 353; Willson v. Winchester & P. R. Co., 99 Fed. 642, 41 C. C. A. or under a purchase from a domestic corporation; 32 or the filing, in the office of the Secretary of State, of duly authenticated copies of its charter and by-laws; 33 or, it has been held, the subsequent acceptance of a paper described as a charter issued by the Secretary of State and reciting a merger, union and consolidation of a domestic with a foreign corporation; 34 or the legislative recognition of the existence within a State of a corporation chartered elsewhere; 35 or even the legislative grant of a charter making it a domestic corporation, when such grant is not accepted: 36 do not make a foreign corporation a citizen of such other State and cut off its right of removal. Where parties sued, or were sued, as corporations, and there was no averment that they were created by, or organized under, the laws of any specified State, it was held to be insufficient to allege that one was a citizen of a certain State; or that it was 215; affirming decree, Wilson V. 32 Williams v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 17,728 (3 Dill. 267); Antelope Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 16 Fed. 295; Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Dakota County, 28 Fed. 219; Conn v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 48 Fed. 177; distinguishing Fitzgerald v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. 812; Morgan v. East Tennessee & V. R. Co., 48 Fed. 705. 33 Pennsylvania R. Co. V. St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290, 30 L. ed. 83; St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 118 U. S. 630, 30 L. ed. 284; Southern Ry. Co. v. Allison, 190 U. S. 326, 47 L. ed. 1078; reversing 129 N. C. 336; Chicago, I. & N. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co., 29 Fed. 337. 34 Lee v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 150 Fed. 775, 792. 35 Martin's Adm'r v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 151 U. S. 673, 38 L. ed. 37 311; Antelope Co. v. Chicago, B. & 36 Pennsylvania R. Co. V. St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290, 30 L. ed. 83; Nashua & Lowell R. R. Corporation v. Boston & Lowell R. R. Corporation, 136 U. S. 356, 34 L. ed. 363. 37 Thomas v. Board of Trustees of Ohio State University, 195 U. S. 207, 49 L. ed. 160; Lonergan v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 55 Fed. 550; Frisbie v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 57 Fed. 1; De Loy v. Traveler's Ins. Co., 59 Fed. 319; American S. R. Co. v. Johnson, 60 Fed. 503; Winkler v. Chicago & E. I. R. Co., 108 Fed. 305; Dalton v. Milwaukee Mechanies' Ins. Co., 118 Fed. 876; Knight v. Lutcher & Moore Lumber Co., 136 "duly established by law, having its principal place of business" in a specified State,38 or that it "claims to be" a corporation organized under the laws of a specified State, as a company of a specified character.39 An allegation that a party was a corporation under the laws of the State of Virginia, and a citizen of Virginia, and a resident of the western district thereof, was held to be sufficient.40 A stipulation that the plaintiff's assignor was duly incorporated and existed accompanied by the articles of incorporation was held to be sufficient to establi that it was organized under the laws of the State named in the complaint.41 § 48. Unincorporated stock companies and associations. There is no presumption as regards the citizenship of members of unincorporated joint stock companies, even where the law under which they were organized authorizes them to sue and be sued in the name of one or more of their officers; and where one of them is a party there is no diversity of citizenship of all the parties on the opposite side of the controversy.1 The same rule applies to voluntary associations, such as trade unions, which are not incorporated.2 Fed. 404. Contra, Oakey v. Commercial & Railroad Bank, 14 La. O. S. 515; Guarantee Co. of North America v. First Nat. Bank (Virginia), 28 S. E. 909. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Adams Express Co., 22 Fed. 404; Whitman v. Hubbell, 30 Fed. 81; Saunders V. Adams Express Co., 136 Fed. 494; Spencer v. Patey, C. C. A., 243 Fed. 555. See Rosenfield V. Adams Express Co. (Louisiana), 21 La. Ann. 233. All these cases arose under the New York statute. But see Boatner v. American Express Co., 122 Fed. 714; where the treasurer of such a joint stock association was allowed to remove a suit brought against him under section 25 of the Kentucky civil code of practice, authorizing one or more of numerous parties to sue or defend for the benefit of all. 2 A. R. Barnes & Co. v. Berry, 156 Fed. 72; Irving v. Joint Dist., Council of New York, &c., of United Brotherhood of Carpenters, &c., 180 Fed. 896. 2 § 49. Partnerships. There is no presumption that the members of a partnership, whether general or limited, are citizens of the State where it was organized; and the citizenship of all its members must be considered when a removal is sought in a suit to which it is a party, even when the State law authorizes them to sue and be sued in the firm name.1 It was so held in a State where a partnership was considered to be a legal entity, and as to limited partnerships organized under the Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania statutes. Where a copartnership was sued alone by its firm name under section 3468 of the Iowa Code, authorizing a suit to be brought either against a partnership or its members, or both, the members of the firm not being named in the plaintiff's petition, which alleged the defendant to be a corporation, it was held, that the suit could not be removed by the members of the firm, who were citizens of a different State from that of the plaintiff. 5 Where there is a § 50. Under grants of different States. controversy between citizens of the same State claiming land under grants of different States, it seems that the District Court of the United States has jurisdiction irrespective of the amount involved.1 Where one party claimed land under a grant of New Hampshire made when Vermont was a part of that State, and the other under a grant from Vermont made after their § 49. 1 Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U. S. 449, 44 L. ed. 842; H. L. Bruett & Co. v. F. C. Austin Drainage Excavator Co., 174 Fed. 668, under Iowa statute; Empire Rice Mill Co. v. K. & E. Neumond, 199 Fed. 800; Columbia Digger Co. v. Rector, 215 Fed. 618. 2 Empire Rice Mill Co. v. K. & E. Neumond, 199 Fed. 800, Louisiana state. As to the Ohio statute, see Irvine v. Church, 227 Fed. 252. 3 Fred Macey Co. v. Macey, 135 Fed. 725, 68 C. C. A. 363. 4 Jewish Colonization Ass'n V. Solomon & Germanski, 125 Fed. 994. 5 Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U. S. 449, 44 L. ed. 842; reversing, 86 Fed. 370, 30 C. C. A. 108; and over-ruling: Bushnell v. Park Bros. & Co., 46 Fed. 209, Carnegie, Phipps & Co. v. Hulbert, 53 Fed. 10, 3 C. C. A. 391, 10 U. S. App. 454; Andrews Bros. Co. v. Youngstown Coke Co., C. C. A., 86 Fed. 585. In all these cases the partnership was organized under Pa. Act of June 2, 1874 (P. L. 271). 6 Ralya Market Co. v. Armour & Co., 102 Fed. 530. $ 50. 1 See Holt on Concurrent Jurisdiction, § 60; In re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653, 660, 37 L. ed. 1211, 1214; In re Keasby & Mattison Co., |