186 FEDERAL RBPOBTEB. �the other corporation. The petition alleges only that such controversy can Le fully determined as between them. It does not allege that such controversy can be fully determined, or can be fully determined as between the plaintiffs and the Atlanta Company, without the presence of the Eichmond Company. The Eichmond Company was not served with process in the state court, nor did it appear therein, nor has it appeared in this court. Any process issued now from this court, to bring it before this court, would be original process, beeause it has not been yet brought before any court, in this suit, by any process. It cannot be brought before this court by original process. It is provided by section 1 of the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. at Large, 470,) that "no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another, in any civil action before a circuit or district court;" and that "no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person, by any original process or proceeding, in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, and in which he shall be found at the time of serving such process or commencing such proceeding, except as hereafter provided." The exception is fonnd in section 8 of the same act, and applies only to a suit commenced in a circuit court to enforce a legal or equitable lien upon, or claim to, or to remove any encumbrance or lien or cloud upon, the title to real or per- son al property within the district where such suit is brought. This is not a suit thus excepted. The Eichmond Company is not an inhabitant of this district, nor, so far as appears, can it be found in this district to be served with process. AU that appears is that it is a Virginia corporation, and that it operates lines of railroad in Virginia and North Carolina. This is a suit in equity. The statute adopting the state prac- tioe as to suits at law does not apply to it. If it did, no such praotice could overrule the provision of the statute of the United States as to the service of process. Moreover, the act of 1875 is subsequent in time to the provision as to state practice in suits at law. There is nothing to show that the Eichmond Company could in fact be served with process, ��� �
