BINNEY'S CASE.—2 BLAND. 139

De Bernalis, 11 Com. Law Rep. 475; The Society, &c. v. New Haven,
8 Wheat. 482; Agnew v. The Bank of Gettysburg, 2 H. & G. 479.

Bat a corporation cannot, on the ground of its foreign origin, or
on the ground of its being an artificial creature of a different State
from that of which the opposite party is a citizen, be allowed to sue
or be sued in the Federal Courts; because the jurisdiction given to
those Courts, founded on the character of the litigants, is put upon
the foot of their being natural persons, integral members of society,
who are citizens of different States. Corporations, therefore, can-
not be qualified to sue in those Courts upon that ground, otherwise
than by looking, according to a most latitudinous construction of
the Federal Constitution, to the natural character and citizenship of
all the individuals of which the artificial body is composed.
Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cran. 445; Batik U. S. Dereaux, 5
Gran. 90; The Corporation of New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91;
U. S. Bank v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 911; ante 109, note (q).
* Nor is there any provision in the Constitution of the Union
which confers jurisdiction upon the Federal Courts in any 148
case where a body politic is a party; because of its having been
concurrently incorporated by two or more States. The Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal Company has been incorporated by the
governments of the District of Columbia, and those of the States
of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland; and now holds, or may
hold, much immovable property, which must be subject to the ex-
clusive jurisdiction of each of them.

It necessarily follows, that this body politic, must, for the pur-
poses of justice, be treated as a separate corporation by the Courts
of justice of each government, from which it has derived its being;
that is, as a domestic legal entity to the extent of the government
under which the Court acts, and as a foreign corporation so far as
regards the other sources of its existence; that although the direct
and strict merits of its title to the immovable property it holds,
under the other governments of its origin, cannot be determined in
any of the Courts of this Republic; yet, that the body politic itself
may, because of its beiug found here, be restrained from wasting
its funds, or expending them for any other than corporate purposes
anywhere, in violation of the delegated authority with which it has
been clothed; that, so far as regards the title to its immovable
property, where it becomes necessary to restrain the making of any
excavation, or erection upon it, or to obtain redress for any injury
done to it, the Courts of justice under whose jurisdiction it lies
must have exclusive cognizance of the matter; and that, in all
other cases, they must have concurrent jurisdiction. Drybutter v.
Bartholomew, 2 P. Will. 128, note.

The dam, the erection of which is complained of, is to be ex-
tended entirely across the River Potomac; and therefore, one part of
it must rest upon the territory of Maryland and the other upon that