76e FEDEBAIi BEFOBTEB. �case expressly admîts that a corporation of one state can have no legal corporate existence in another state; and if this ,be true it is dif&cult to see how it can do enough more than to exist, to become a citizen under the law there. If it could, one individuality would be a citizen of two different states at the same time. In Knapp v. Troy e Boston R. Co., 20 Wall. 117, it was held that this same defendant, while lessee, operating this road in Vermont the same as now, and the plaintiff there, who was a citizen of New York, were citi- zens of the same state, of New York, so that the case was not removable. That cause of action arose in Vermont, the same as that in Balt. e Ohio R. Co. v. Noels arose in Virginia. If corporations are citizens wherever they do business, the right to remove causes in which they are parties to, or to bring them in, the federal courts, is very much less than bas almost uni- versally been supposed. But that doctrine doea not now appear to be tenable. Motion overruled. �Note. — See liunklq v. Lamar Ins. Oo. 2 Fed. IIbp. 9. ���State Ins, Co. of Missoubi v. Eedhond, Assignee, eto. �(District Court, B. B. Arkansas. , 1880.) �1. Corporation — Sdbscription — Payment. — A corporation, whose cliar- ter and by-]aws require each subscdber to its capital stock to pay a given per centage of his subscription in cash at the time of stibscrib- ing, cannot enforce payment of a subscription where the required casli payment has not been made. �Caldwell, D. J. The plaintiff filed with the regîster proof of a claim against the estate of the bankrupt, which was allowed. Afterwards, on re-examination of the claim, under rule 34 of General Orders in Bankruptcy, the same was dis- allowed and expunged by the register. This order of the reg- ister is before the court for review, on special petition for that purpose. ����
