138 BINNEY'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

place within the jurisdiction of either of the governments, for the
use of a space of canal, a part of which extends beyond its limits,
such toll might be considered as forming a portion of the product
of the canal property within the jurisdiction of the government
where they were gathered. Drybutter v. Bartholomew, 2 P. Will.
127; The King v. The Aire & Colder Navigation, 2 T. B. 666; The
King v. Mayor of London, 4 T. R. 21.

Hence, it appears, that directing the estate of this corporation
to be deemed personal property, can amount to no more than
declaring, that it shall be governed by the municipal regulations of
the country where it lies in relation to personal property, instead
of those relative to real estate; but that it must, nevertheless, be
governed by those laws, and none other, as being an immovable
portion of the habitation of the nation. These principles of public
law, in regard to the immovable property of this corporation lying
beyond the confines of this State, bring us back to the question,
whether this Court can exercise any jurisdiction in relation to such
property, and to what extent.

* Although the power of our government constitutionally
147 to create a corporation beyond its jurisdiction, or to confer
the rights and privileges of a body politic upon any but its own
immediate citizens, so as thus to give an extra-territorial operation
to its legislative enactments, may well be doubted; yet the estab-
lishment of a body politic, clothed with authority to conduct
expensive and profitable operations beyond the limits of the State
by which it was created; and under governments by which its
corporate existence has not been recognized, it is believed, is a
matter of no very extraordinary or rare occurrence. The East
India Company, and The South Sea Company of England, The
Company of Merchant Adventurers v. Kebow, 3 Mod. 126; Jacob's
Law Diet. V. Turkey Company; and The Temascaltepec Mining
Company of Baltimore, The Tlalcotal Mining Company of Balti-
more, and some other's here, are corporations having such powers.
1826. eh. 81; 1827, ch. 174; 1828, ch. 57 & 132; 1829, ch. 42. If an
individual has a well founded claim, arising from, or is likely to
suffer by the foreign operations of such a corporation, and the case
be of an equitable character, this Court may take cognizance of it,
and grant relief, if the body politic or its property are to be found
within reach of its process. Nabob of the Carnatic v. Emit India
Company, 1 Ves. Jun. 371; S. C. 2 Ves. Jun. 56. And so too a
corporation which has been created by a foreign government, is a
legal entity of which the Courts of this Republic will take notice,
and allow to sue, and maintain its rights here; and have funds
here applied to its use out of the limits of the State. Henriques v.
Dutch West India Company, 2 Ld. Raym. 1532; Attorney- General v.
The Mayor of London, 3 Bro. C. C. 171; S. C. 1 Ves. Jun. 244;
Barclay v. Russell, 3 Ves. 424; The National Bank of St. Charles v.