UPHOFF V. CHICAGO, ST. L. & N. 0. B. 00. 845 �Uphofp V. The Chicago, St. L. & N. 0. E. Co. �{Oireuit Court, D. Kentucky July, 1880.) �1. CiOBPORATioN — Adoption of Fobbign — JimismcrioN. — It is always a �question of legislative latent whetlier the legislature of a state Iuu3 adopted as its own a corporation of another state, or merely licensed it to do business in the state. If, however, the eflect of the legisla- tion be to adopt the corporation, it becomea, for the purposes of juris- diction, a corporation created by the state adopting it. �2. Rbmovai, op Causes — Coksoi.idatbd Corpobatioh — ^Railboadb. — The �incorporators of a Kentucky corporation are conclusively presumed to be citizens of that state. Hdd, tberefore, that a suit commenced in the state court by a citizen of Kentucky against a corporation char- tered as a single Consolidated company by the several States, includ- ing Kentucky, through which it operates a railroad, cannot be re- moved to the federal court, as a controversy between citizens of different states. �Motion to Eemand. �Bigger d Beid, for plaintiff. �Oreen <e Gilbert, for defendant. �Hammond, D. J., (sitting by designation.) The plaintiff sued the defendant corporation in the court of common pleas of Hickman county, Kentucky, for negligently killing her hus- band. The defendant removed the cause into this court, alleging in its petition that the plaintiff is a citizen of Ken- tucky and the defendant "a citizen" of Louisiana. The plain- tiff has filed here a response to said petition admitting that the plaintiff is a citizen of Kentucky, but averring that "while it may be true the defendant was and is a citizen of the state of Louisiana, yet it is also true that the defendant is a corporation and citizen of the state of Kentucky, duly incorporated and made such citizen by an act of the general assembly of the common-wealth of Kentucky, approved March 11, 1878, with power as such corporation and citizen to sue and be sued and contract in the state of Kentucky," The motion of the plaintiff is now made to remand the cause to the state court for want of jurisdiction. It is to be observed that the response to the petition for removal admits that the defendant corporation is "a citizen" of Louisiana, but avers �v.5,no.7 — 35 ����
