50 FEDERAL REPORTER.
the circuit court of the next adjoining state, or the next adjoin-
ing circuit court, " that it was the intention to give all the powers
V necessary in order to carry the litigation between the parties into
judgment or decree. Notwithstanding the statute merely refers to
and authorizes "the proper process for the due execution of the
judgment or the decree rendered in the cause" to run into the dis-
trict from which the cause was removed, it is apparent that unless
the court has the power necessary, and which often must be exer-
cised by courts in order to reach the judgment or decree, that there
never could be any process issued to execute the decree or judgment.
It is, therefore, one of those cases where thepower is necessarily
implied from the express declaration of powers given, and without
which the latter powers might never be called into exercise.
Homm v. Bosron & M. R. B.
V (Uncut: Court, D. New Hampshma. October 13, 1883.)
1. RArr.noAns-Surrs AsAmsr—WmzN Cuanrmunn LNVSEVERAL S·rA·1·r:s—J mus-
‘ nrorron on Fmnnmu. Counrs. t ·
The supreme court has decided that when the same corporation owning a
road which runs through several states is chartered by each of them, it is, by
" a useful notion, to be considered for purposes of jurisdiction a citizen of each
of the states; and where sucha corporation ·is sued in one,of the states in
which it holds a charter, as a citizen of that state, it cannot set up that it is
likewise a citizen of another.
2. SAME.
The uction that makes two or three corporations out of what is in fact one,
is established for the purpose of giving each state its legitimate control over
` the charters which it grants; but the acts and neglects of the corporation are
done by it as a whole. ·
Motion to Bemand.
Marston cé Eastman, for plaintiff. j
Mr. Copeland, for defendant. .
Lowmm., J. The plaintiff, a citizen of New Hampshire, brought his
action in one of the courts of that state against the defendants, as a
corporation duly established and having a place of business at Exe-
ter, in the same state, for personal injuries sustained through the
fault of the defendants at Law1·ence, in the state of Massachusetts,
setting his damages at more than $500. The defendants, in due
season, Bled their petition, and moved to remove the action to this
court. The justice refused to order the removal, and his ruling has
been sustained by the full bench of the supreme court of New Hamp-
shire. I have seen the opinion of the court, and agree with it, but
as it may not be published for some time I will give briefly the facts
of the case and the authorities which apply to them.
The defendants were first incorporated in New Hampshire by their