m’coY v. 0., 1., sr. 1.. a 0. 12. 00. 5
in the premises, said defendant unlawfully and wrongfully refuses to
receive stock from, or deliver stock to, complainant, except through
the United Railroads Stock-Yards Company’s yard, whose yards, it
appears, adjoin the complainant’s yards.
Complainant thereupon prays for an injunction to restrain said
defendant from so discriminating against it, and to compel it to re- ·
ceive and make deliveries of stock to him in the same manner and
on as favorable terms as it receives from and delivers to complain-
ant’s said competitor.
The application for a preliminary injunction came on for argu-
ment before me at Knoxville on the twelfth of July, 1882, when the
Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad Company
filed its plea denying the jurisdiction of this court, because, as the
plea avers, it is not a corporation of Ohio, as it alleged, but that it
is a corporation under and in virtue of the laws of the state of Indi-
ana alone. It does not, by its plea, deny service of process or raise
any question in regard to its regularity or legal suliiciency. But the `
counsel insisted in argument that as defendant was an Indiana
corporation, and a citizen of that state, it could not be lawfully
served with process in this jurisdiction, and that it was, therefore,
not legitimately before the court. _
We need not stop to demonstrate that the question argued by coun- I V
sel is broader than the plea, inasmuch as if such question was raised
by the plea I would not hesitate to overrule it.
We concede that corporations-mere legal entities—can only
legally exist within the territorial limits of the sovereignty creating
them; that they must dwell in the places of their creation, and can
not migrate to other sovereignties. But it is asequally well settled
that they can do business, if not inhibited by law from so doing, in
foreign states and countries, and that they may be there sued in re—
lation to the same. 1 Redfield, Railw. p. 63, § 4.
Hence, if it were conceded that the defendant is an Indiana cor-
poration, as alleged in its plea, it appears that it owns and operates
a railroad in Ohio, where its president resides and its principal oince
is located, and that it is there, by legislative permission, engaged
in the business of a railroad carrier. If so, it is liable to be served
with process in this jurisdiction. "This court," says Judge Force, of
the superior court of Cincinnati, in a case recently decided by him,
"has, by statute, jurisdiction of an action against a foreign corpora-
tion when such corporation can be found within the city. A corpora- V
tion can be found where it can be served with a process according to