§ 383.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. § 383. Legal effect of the act in the for- eign state. poration. A different question is the one regarding the legal effect of the act within the limits of the state where it was done. There the legal effect depends ordina- rily on whether that state will give effect to provi- sions in the laws of the state incorporating the cor- For corporations are not citizens within the meaning of the provisions in the Federal constitution guaranteeing to the citizens of each state all the privileges and immunities of citi- zens in the several states ; 1 and, accordingly, a state may pro- hibit a corporation incorporated by another state from contract- ing within the limits of the former, 2 or may exact a license fee from the corporation for the privilege of having an office within the state, unless that corporation be engaged in interstate commerce, or the service of the Federal government; 3 or may deny to a foreign corporation the right to share in the assets of an insolvent corporation, in course of distribution in its courts. 4 increase capital stock) passed at a stockholders 1 meeting held without the state are binding on all taking part or profiting by them (as e. <)., by accepting the new shares). Hand- ley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417. 1 Art. IV., § 2. 2 Paul o. Virginia. 8 Wall. 168 ; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404, 407 ; Ducat o. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachu- setts, ib. 566 ; Doyle p. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 535 ; Pembina Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181; Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557; Warren M'f'g Co. v. ^Etna Ins. Co., 2 Paine, 501 ; Home Ins. Co. v. Davis, 29 Mich. 238; Common- wealth v. Milton, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 212 ; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Common- wealth, 5 Bush (Ky.), 68; Gill's Adm. v. Kentucky, etc., Gold M'g Co., 7 Bush, 635 ; Matthews v. Trus- tees, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 541 ; Fire Dept. v. Noble, 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 449 ; Slaughter v. Commonwealth, 13 Gratt. ( Va. ) 767 ; Western Union Tel. Co. o. Mayer, 28 Ohio St. 521. 366 See Milnor v. N. Y. and N. H. R. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 363 ; People v. Fire Ass'n, 92 N. Y. 311 ; Tatem v. Wright, 23 N. J. L. 429 ; cf. Sandal v. Atlanta L. I. Co., 53 S. C. 241 ; also § 480. But it is doubtful, when congress has conferred on a railroad corpora- tion created by a state the power to construct its road within an organ- ized territory, whether such terri- tory after it has become a state can impose any impediment to the full enjoyment of the right thus con- ferred. Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 TJ. S. 360, 369 ; Railroad Co. v. Baldwin, 103 TJ. S. 426. " It could only do this on the same terms that it could refuse a recognition of its own pre- viously granted right, for in such matters the state would succeed only to the authority of congress over the territory." Railroad Co. ». Baldwin, 103 U. S. 426, 431. 8 Pembina Mining Co. v. Penn- sylvania, 125 U. S. 181. See Southern B'ld'g Ass'n v. Norman, 98 Ky. 294. « Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239.
