148 BINNEY'S CASE.

If or is there any provision in the Constitution of the Union which
confers jurisdiction upon the federal courts in any case where a
body politic is a party; because of its having been concurrently
incorporated by two or more states. The Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal Company has been incorporated by the governments of the
District of Columbia, and those of the states of Virginia, Pennsyl-
vania, and Maryland; and now holds, or may hold, much immo-
vable property, which must be subject to the exclusive 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 being found here, be restrained from wasting
its funds, or expending them for any other than corporate purposes
any where, 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, (y)

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

of Virginia; consequently, to that extent each state must have an
exclusive jurisdiction, so far as it may be necessary to prevent its
erection by injunction. But the object of preventing the erection
of this dam is to put a stop to the expenditure of the funds of the
body politic, for other than corporate purposes, within the District
of Columbia; and consequently, so far only as the body politic

& Dundas v. Elizey, 2 Cran. 445; Bank U. S. Deveaux, 5 Cran. 90; The Corpora-
lion of New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91; U. S. Bank v. Planters' Bank, 9
Wheat. 911; ante 109, note (q).
(f) Drybutter v. Bartholomew, 2 P. Will, 128, note.