to be such by statute.1 A mere intention to violate corporate duty, or the obtaining of a charter from another State, is not a cause of forfeiture; 2 and generally such cause must be a wilful abuse or culpable neglect, and not a mere omission or non-feasance. The court, when a cause of forfeiture is shown, has no discretion to refuse a judgment upon the ground that the forfeiture is against the public interest.1

A cause of forfeiture which has not been judicially declared in a direct proceeding cannot be taken advantage of collaterally. The State alone having the right to insist on a forfeiture can waive it, directly or by implication. The waiver will not, however, revive a corporation which by its default has ceased to exist, where the legislature is prohibited by the constitution from granting special charters.7

Quo Warranto and Scire Facias.-The proceeding against a corporation for usurpation, nonuser, or misuser of a franchise is

ple v. River Raisin & L. E. R. Co., 12 Mich. 389; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Supervisors, 3 W. Va. 319; La Grange & M. R. Co. v. Rainey, 7 Cold. 420; Ahrens v. State Bank, 3 S. C. 401; Shand v. Gage, 9 S. C. 187; Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. Balt. & O. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. 1, 106, 107.

1 Commonwealth v. Commercial Bank, 28 Pa. St. 383; Attorney-General v. Petersburg & R. R. Co., 6 Ired. 456; State v. Mil., L. S., & W. R. Co., 45 Wis. 579. 2 Commonwealth v. Pittsburg & C. R. Co., 58 Pa. St. 26.

3 Attorney-General v. Miss. Valley & S. I. R. Co., 51 Miss. 602; Commonwealth v. Commercial Bank, 28 Pa. St. 383; Angell & A. on Corp. § 776.

ham v Del. & H. C. Co., 61 Pa. St. 265, 271; Thompson v. New York & H. R. Co., 3 Sandf. Ch. 625; New York Elevated R. Co., In re, 70 N. Y. 327; Conn. & P. R. R. Co. v. Bailey, 24 Vt. 465; Wilmington & M. R. Co. v. Saunders, 3 Jones (N. C.), 126; Lehman v. Warner, 61 Ala. 455; State v. Fagan, 22 La. An. 545; Union Branch R. Co. v. East Tenn. & G. R. Co., 14 Ga. 327; Ahrens v. State Bank, 3 S. C. 401, 407; Bohannon v. Binns, 31 Miss. 355; La Grange & M. R. Co. v. Rainey, 7 Cold. 420; Angell & A. on Corp. § 777; 2 Kent Com. 312.

6 People v. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. 351; New York Elevated R. Co., In re, 70 N. Y. 327; People v. Miss. & A. R.Co., 14 Ill.

4 State v. Penn. & O. Canal Co., 23 440; Commonwealth v. Pittsburg & C. R. Ohio St. 121.

5 Chesapeake & O. C. Co. v. Balt. & O. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. 1, 121; Cahill v. Kalamazoo Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Doug. (Mich.) 124; Hamilton v. Annapolis & E. R. Co., 1 Md. Ch. 107; Laflin & R. P. Co. v. Sinsheimer, 46 Md. 315; Frost v. Frostburg Coal Co., 24 How. 278; Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665; New Jersey Southern R. Co. v. Long Branch Com'rs, 10 Vroom, 28; Commonwealth v. Allegheny Bridge Co., 20 Pa. St. 185; Dyer v. Walker, 40 Pa. St. 157; Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. Speer, 56 Pa. St. 325; Farn

Co., 58 Pa. St. 26, 49; Farnham v. Del. & H. C. Co., 61 Pa. St. 265; AttorneyGeneral v. Petersburg & R. R. Co., 6 Ired. 456; State v. Miss., O., & R. R. R. Co., 20 Ark. 495; La Grange & M. R. Co. v. Rainey, 7 Cold. 420; Commonwealth v. Tenth Mass. Turnp. Co., 11 Cush. 171; State v. Fourth N. H. Turnp., 15 N. H. 162.

7 Brooklyn, W., & N. R. Co., In re, 75 N. Y. 335, 72 N. Y. 245, 19 Hun, 314, 55 How. Pr. 14; People v. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. 351; Oroville & V. R. Co. v. Plumas County, 37 Cal. 354.

by scire facias, or an information in the nature of a quo warranto, each prosecuted at the instance and on behalf of the State. The former can be used only against a corporation, legally existing and capable of acting, which has abused its power, while the latter is available both against a legally existing corporation guilty of such abuse and against individuals unlawfully assuming to be a corporation. When the proceeding is for ousting parties claiming to be a corporation without warrant of law, it must be against individuals; for if against the corporation, the information admits its present or former existence.2 When it is for excluding a corporation from franchises which it has usurped, it may be filed against the corporation, and the judgment will be of ouster from such franchises, but not of dissolution.

The granting of leave to file the information is within the discretion of the court. The attorney-general or proper prosecuting officer may institute the suit without a special authority or direction from the legislature. A statute penalty for a default, or a reserved power of repeal, does not exclude these remedies." Damages are not awarded on a judgment on quo warranto.

Corporate Property in the Event of a Dissolution. The capital of a corporation becomes, upon its dissolution, a fund to be administered in equity for the payment of creditors, and afterwards for distribution among stockholders.8 The creditors

1 Chesapeake & O. C. Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. 1, 121; Washington & B. Turnp. Co. v. Maryland, 19 Md. 239, 287; People v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 15 Wend. 113; People v. Bristol & R. Turnp. Co., 23 Wend. 222, 235; People v. Northern R. Co., 42 N. Y. 217; State v. Mil., L. S., & W. R. Co., 45 Wis. 579; Commonwealth v. Tenth Mass. Turnp. Co., 5 Cush. 509; State v. Boston, C., & M. R. Co., 25 Vt. 433; People v. Jackson & M. P. R. Co., 9 Mich. 285; Bruffett v. Great Western R. Co., 25 Ill. 353; State v. Consolidation Coal Co., 46 Md. 1; National Docks R. Co. v. Central R. Co., 5 Stewart (N. J.), 755, 4 Stewart (N. J.), 475; Angell & A. on Corp. ch. 21, 22; 2 Kent Com. 313; Grant on Corp. 295-305.

2 People v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 15 Wend. 113; State v. Cincinnati Gas Light & C. Co., 18 Ohio St. 262; Mud Creek Draining Co. v. State, 43 Ind. 236.

3 State v. Penn. & O. Canal Co., 23 Ohio St. 121; People v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 15 Wend. 113.

4 Fall River Iron Works Co. v. Old Colony & F. R. R. Co., 5 Allen, 221, 224; Cole v. Dyer, 29 Ga. 434.

5 State v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 24 Tex. 80.

6 People v. Bristol & R. Turnp. Co., 23 Wend. 222, 244; Washington & B. Turnp. Co. v. Maryland, 19 Md. 239, 287: State v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 24 Tex. 80.

7 Fall River Iron Works Co. v. Old Colony & F. R. R. Co., 5 Allen, 221, 225.

8 Mumma v. Potomac Co., 8 Peters, 281; Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How. 304; Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. 480; Lum v. Robertson, 6 Wall. 277; Hightower v. Thornton, 8 Ga. 486; Montgomery & W. P. R. Co. v. Branch, 59 Ala. 139; Shamokin Valley & P. R. Co. v. Malone, 85 Pa. St. 25; Western North Carolina R.

have a lien on the assets, and may follow them into the hands of stockholders and persons who are indebted to the corporation.1 The rights of stockholders in the assets are subordinate to those of creditors.2

Domicile of the Corporation. The home or domicile of a corporation is within the State which created it. It exists only by force of law, and cannot live beyond the jurisdiction of that law. But it may, by the comity of States, perform acts elsewhere. Thus, when authorized by the law which created it, it may make contracts, own property real or personal, and sue in other States, when admitted to do so by their law or policy, and the permission to do this is implied unless a refusal is expressed in some affirmative way. The corporation may own and operate railroads in a foreign State under due authority of its statutes.5 A State may, however, at will license or refuse to license foreign corporations to act within its jurisdiction. The particular domicile of a corporation within a State depends upon the language of its statutes.7

The purely local existence of a corporation has been held to exempt it from liability to be sued in other States, although having a place of business and carrying on business in them, except by means of an attachment of its property, or under an express statute provision ; but some authorities maintain, with good reaCo. v. Rollins, 82 N. C. 523; Lothrop Van Santvoord, 34 N. Y. 208, 38 Barb. v. Stedman, 42 Conn. 583, 13 Blatch. 574; Bank of Ashland v. Jones, 16 Ohio 134. St. 145, 157.

1 Bartlett v. Drew, 57 N. Y 587; Hastings v. Drew, 76 N. Y. 9; Hardy v. Merriweather, 14 Ind. 203; Bish v. Bradford, 17 Ind. 490; Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. 480; Germantown Pass. R. Co. v. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 124; Henry v. Vermil. lion & A. R. Co, 17 Ohio, 187; Robertson v. Sibley, 10 Minn. 323.

2 Ryan v. Leavenworth, A., & N. W. Co, 21 Kan. 365.

3 Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters, 519, 588; Christian Union v. Yount, 101 U. S. 352; Black v. Del. & R. Canal Co., 7 C. E. Green, 130, 422, 9 C. E. Green, 455; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Glenn, 28 Md. 287; O'Brien v Wetherell, 14 Kan. 616; State v. Boston, C., & M. R. Co., 25 Vt. 433; Clare mont Bridge v. Royce, 42 Vt. 730; Thomp. son v. Waters, 25 Mich. 214; Merrick v.

4 Cowell v. Colorado Springs Co., 100 U. S. 55, 3 Col. 82.

5 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall 65; Martin v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 7 Bush, 116; Hunt v. Kansas & M. Bridge Co., 11 Kan. 412; post, Chap. XIX. p. 497. 6 Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 535.

7 Bristol v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 15 Ill. 436.

8 Andrews v. Mich. Cent. R. Co, 99 Mass. 534; Williston v. Mich. S. & N. I. R. Co., 13 Allen, 400; Smith v Mut. Life Ins. Co., 14 Allen, 336; Blackstone Man. Co. v. Blackstone, 13 Gray, 488; Brewster v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 5 How. Pr. 183; Barnett v. Chicago & L. H. R. Co., 6 Thomp. & C. 358, 4 Hun, 114; Ogdensburg & L. C. R. Co. v. Vt. & C. R. Co., 6 Thomp. & C. 488, 489, note.

son, its liability to be sued within a foreign jurisdiction, where it has a place of business, upon causes of action arising therein.1 A corporation, by leasing a road in a foreign State and operating it as owner, becomes the citizen of such State for the purpose of jurisdiction, and a suit against it therein is not subject to removal to the national tribunals. A corporation created by the legislation of different States may be sued as a domestic corporation in each.3 Suits and proceedings which relate to the internal economy of a corporation, such as for enforcing the peculiar rights and liabilities of members, or determining who are the rightful officers, or compelling the directors to declare and pay dividends or perform other duties," or declaring a forfeiture of the franchises, or dissolving the corporation and winding up its affairs, can be brought only in the domestic jurisdiction.

A mandamus will not be issued to enforce a municipal subscription to a foreign corporation."

A court of equity will not compel a domestic corporation to perform acts in a foreign State from which it has received a charter, but it will, under some circumstances, take jurisdiction as to property in another State, where the person against whom relief is sought is within the State."

A court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter will obtain jurisdiction of a foreign corporation by its consent, which may be expressed by an appearance by attorney, and answering generally to the action.10

The deed of a corporation executed in the State creating it, and valid by its laws, will be held valid in other States.11

1 Newby v. Von Oppen, L. R. 7 Q. B. 293; National Condensed Milk Co. v. Brandenburgh, 11 Vroom, 111; Cumber land Coal Co. v. Sherman, 8 Abbott Pr. 243; Cumberland Coal & I. Co. v. Hoffman Coal Co., 30 Barb. 159.

2 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Wightman, 29 Gratt. 431; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Noell, 32 Gratt. 394.

3 Mahany v. Kephart, 15 W. Va. 609; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Gallahue, 12 Gratt. 655.

4 Erickson v. Nesmith, 4 Allen, 233; Halsey v. McLean, 12 Allen, 438. Contra, Flash v. Conn, 16 Fla. 428.

5 Williston v. Mich. S. & N. I. R. Co., 13 Allen, 400, Howell v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 51 Barb. 378; Chase v. Van

derbilt, 37 N. Y. Superior, 334, 62 N. Y. 307. But see Prouty v. Mich. S. & N. I. R. Co., 4 Thomp. & C. 230, 1 Hun, 655; Redmond v. Hoge, 3 Hun, 171, 13 Abbott Pr. N. s. 332.

6 Carey v. Cincinnati & C. R. Co., 5 Iowa, 357.

7 Land Grant R. T Co. v. Coffey County, 6 Kan. 245.

8 Port Royal R. Co. v. Hammond, 58 Ga. 523.

9 Mead v. New York H. & N. R. Co., 45 Conn. 199.

10 McCormick v. Penn. Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 203.

11 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Glenn, 28 Md. 287.

A corporation is, for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, a citizen of the State creating it,1 and an affidavit in its behalf, for the purpose of removing an action from a State to a national court, may be sworn to by an officer duly authorized to act for it.2

The Status of a Railroad Corporation Established in Different States. The status of a corporation, owning a railroad which extends into different States, presents difficulties growing out of its relation to distinct sovereignties with their legislative and judicial systems more or less conflicting or divergent. A reference to the principles of international law, public and private, may help to define it.

A state or nation has exclusive sovereignty or jurisdiction. within its limits. This fundamental doctrine includes all matters relating to property or persons, as the title to real and personal property, and the conditions of its use and transfer; the validity of contracts; the civil condition, rights, and obligations of persons, artificial bodies or institutions, public and private; the remedial system; police regulations; in short, everything to which the functions of government pertain. It necessarily follows that within its limits no other State can, by its laws, govern or regulate in any of these respects. Foreign laws may take effect in a State to a greater or less degree, but this is by virtue of its express or tacit consent under the comity which prevails between States; and this consent may be given or withheld in its discretion. A foreign corporation may act within it by its permission, and this permission may be given upon such terms as it may see fit to impose. These principles define the relation between the States of this Union as well as the relation between independent nations.

It results from these principles that one State cannot, without the express or implied consent of another State, confer powers upon a corporation created by itself to be exercised in that other

1 Louisville, C., & C. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286; Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403; Quigley v. Cent. Pacific R. Co., 11 Nev. 350, 357. As to the effect of its association with a domestic corporation, see

Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Chicago & P.
R. Co., 6 Biss. 219.

2 Mahone". Manchester & L. R. Co., 111 Mass. 72; Quigley v. Cent. Pacific R. Co., 11 Nev. 350.

3 Wheaton's International Law, §§ 77, 79; Wharton's Confl. Laws, ch. 7.