502 FEDERAL REPORTER. �So far, then, as the rule bas been developed by adjudged cases, it appears to be that where the act of a state provides for the organiza- tionand incorporation of a companyit thereby becomos a corporation of that state, and in that state is a citizen thereof for the pnrposes of suit, although the same persons, by the same corporate name, have been incorporated, with the same powers and for the same object, by another state; but when the act does not create the corporation, and recognizes it as already existing by the laws of another state, and extends to it like powers (or such of them and with such limitations and on such condition as may be named) as are given it by the laws of the state incorporating it, such act must be construed to be only a license enlarging the field of operations of the company, and said Company, upon extending its operations under such an act into the state passing such an act, does not become a corporation of that state, but goes there as the corporation of another state, liable to be sued in the state embracing the new field of its operations, but shorn of none of its qualities as a corporation of another state. �And if the act of Virginia, above referred to, did not incorporate the Baltimore & Ohio Eailway in Virginia, and make it a Virginia sorporation as to its operation in that state, surely the act of 1870 by this state did not make the complainant a Texas corporation as to its operations in this state. It remains a citizen of Kansas, as such privileged to elect to sue in the United States courts. �On the merits of this controversy the parties in the billand answer, and their respective assistant affidavits, indulge and exhibit much contrariety of view as to the facts ; but I clearly gather from the affi- davits, and from the bill and answer, that defendant has changed the location of its line substantially as alleged in the bill, and was threatening and attempting to push a side track across complainaut's right of way, crossing the main track and side track of complainant so as to connect with the Central at a point east of complainant's line, and return with said Central's track to defendant'^ main line, which, at this point, is west of complainant's line, thus crqssing complainant's line twice at points not more than 290 feet apart, and less than one mile from the first crossing of complainant's and defendant's railroads; that defendant is advised by its engineer, and its other officei-s believe, that said connection with the Central is the only one practically pos- sible to be made, and that complainant's engineer advises, and its offieers believe, that just as easy and practicable connection with the Central ean be made there by the defendant without so placing a side track across comijlainant's tracks; that complainant's consent so to ��� �
