22 rSDEBAIi BBPOBTES. �cisions of the supreme court of the United States upon thia eubject. �It is claimed, on the part of the original defendant, that this case is likô that of The St. Louis, Alton e Terre Haute R. Co. V. The Indianapolis d St. Louis R. Co. 12 Leg. News, 73, and therefore that case, in principle, decides this, because it was there held that the federal court had jurisdiction. That was an original bill filed by a corporation of the state of Illinois against corporations of Indiana and Pennsylvania, the Indiana corporations being Consolidated, it is true, with a corporation of Illinois, the plaintiff in the suit. This is not a suit brought by a New York corporation, an integral part of this Consolidated company, against an Illinois corpo- ration, but it is a suit brought by an lUinois corporation against another Illinois corporation, an integral part of a Consolidated company of which the New York corporation also constitutes a part. It may be that where there is a consolidation under the laws of different states of the corpo- rations of those states operating a railroad, that one of the corporations can file a bill in equity in the federal court for the protection and maintenance of its own interests against another corporation, part of the Consolidated company, and created by a different state from that of the plaintiff. But that is not this case. It cannot be said that this is a contro- versy wholly between citizens of different states, because it is a controversy between two citizens of Illinois, each being a corporation of Illinois, and therefore it is a controversy in part only between the corporation plaintiff and the corpora-. tion defendant that seeks the removal of the cause. �Neither is this case like that of The Northwestern Ry. Co. V. The Chicago e Pacific R. Co. 7 Leg. News, 57, where the plaintiff, although Consolidated with a corporation of Illinois, sued as a corporation of Wisconsin. �The principle contended for, as I understand, by the de- fendant in the original suit, amounts to this : That, because a person is sued in a state court by a citizen of that state, and a citizen of another state is jointly interested with tho ����
