788 FEDERAL REPORTER. �which they may te known. If the essential franchises of a corpora- tion are conferred upon a joint-stock company, it is none the iess s corporation because the statute calls it something else, or even desig- nates it as an " unincorporated association." �3. Bamb— Federal JrrKisDiCTioN. �The reasons which induced the supreme court to hold that, for the purposes of federal jurisdiction, corporations are to be regarded as citizens of the states whose creatures they are, call with equal force for a similar ruling as to joint-stock companies organized under the laws of New York. �In Equity. Motion to Dismiss Suit for Want of Jurisdiction. �Isaac Caldwell and E. F. Trabue, for respondent, cited the following authorities : The American Express Company, not being a corporation, cannot sue as one in its corporate name or by its president. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497; Marshall v. B. e 0. R. Co. 16 How. 314; 0. e M. R. Co. V. Whecler, 1 Black, 286. Ail shareholders must there- fore be citizens of other states than Indiana. Hope Ins. Co, Y. Boardman, 6 Cranch, 57; Bank of U. S. v. Deveanx, Id. 85 ; Breithaupt v. Bank of Georgia, 1 Pet. 238 ; Bank of Gwm- berland v. Willis, 3 Sumn. 472; North River Co. v. Hoffmkn, �5 John. Ch. 300; Bank of Vicksburg v. Slocum, 14 Pet. 60; Whitney v.Mayo, 15 111. 254; Baldwin v. Lawrence, 2 Simon �6 Stuart, 18; Leigh v. Thomas, 2 Vesey, Sr. 312; Strowbridge V. Curtis, 3 Cranch, 257; Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat. 591. The president of such a, joint-stock company is prae- tically a corporation sole for the purpose of suing and being sued. Life Ass'n of America v. Rundle, (U. S. Supreme Court, 1881,) 12 Cent. Law J. 130; 13 Chic. Leg. N. 185; Reddish V. Pinnock, 10 Exch. 220; Chapman v. Milvain, 5 Exch. 61; Hybart v. Parker, 93 B. C. L. 212; Westcott v. Fargo, 61 N. Y. 547; Overseers v. Sears, 22 Pick. 125; Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co. Y. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566. �Sherman S. Roger s and A. W. Hendricks, for complainant, cited the following authorities : There is no want of juris- a jtion unless the Indiana shareholders are indispensable parties. West v. Randall, 2 Mason, 196; Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall 431 ; Hotel Co. v. Wade, 97 U. S. 13-21 ; Story's Eq. FI §§ 72-100; H&rn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570; Shields y. ��� �
