the fact that it was so created. It was held, that by the conSolication of a Federal with a State corporation, the former did not lose any of its rights or franchises as such, and was not estopped from removing suits brought against it in the State courts to those of the United States, notwithstanding that the laws of the State in question provided: "If any railroad compan, organized under the laws of this State, shall consolidate by sale or otherwise with any railroad company organized under the 1 aws of any other State or of the United States, the same shall not thereby become a foreign corporation, but the courts of this State shall retain jurisdiction in all matters which may arise as if said consolidation had not taken place."6 When a party is a corporation, which derives its charter from a Territorial statute, that fact does not make the case arise under the law of the United States, although it was organized in pur 6 llen v. Texas & P. R. Co., 25 way der the the Corporation in the Territories of Utah, Idaho and Wyoming,'' unsame limitations, and with same rights that it previously had under its articles of incorporation in Wyoming, and with all the rights and privileges within these Territories secured to railway companies by a previous act of Congranting to railroads the right of way through public lands. Another act of Congress provides: that the Utah & Northern Railway Company. a corporation organized under the laws of Utah, "is hereby made a railway corporation in the Terri gress tories tana, and of Utah, Idaho and Monunder the same limitations, with the same rights that it then had under its articles of incorporation. It was held on a petition of the Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern Railroad Company, a corporation formed by a consolidation of these two companies: that the statute gave no powers or rights to be exercised outside of the Territories named therein, and therefore did not give such corporations a Federal character; and that petitioner and its several constituent companies were Territorial organizations, and not entitled to a removal to the Federal court of an action brought against it in the Supreme Court, as a suit arising under the laws of the United States. Oregon Short Line & U. N. R. Co. v. Skottowe, 162 U. S. 490, 40 L. ed. 1048; affirming Skottowe v. Oregon Short Line & U. N. Ry. Co., 22 Or. 430, 30 Pac. 222, 16 L.R.A. 593; approving Conlon v. Oregon Short Line & U. N. Ry. Co., 21 Or. 462, 28 Pac. 501. In an elaborate opinion, 32 Wash. Law Rep. 758, 761, Fred Dennet, Esq., of D. C. bar argued that organizations in 8 suance of the corporation laws of Arkansas under an act of Congress, which directed that they should be enforced in that Territory with the same effect as if enacted in haec verba. An action by a shipbuilding company against the Emergency Fleet Corporation organized under the laws of the United States founded upon an alleged breach of a contract for ship building could be removed to a Federal court. 10 A corporation manufacturing munitions for the United States out of supplies furnished by the National Government was permitted to sue in the Federal courts to enjoin labor unions from interfering with its prosecution of work for the Government.1 11 When the Federal corporation was actually interested in the controversy, 12 the joinder of another defendant, even if he was the receiver of the other, did not prevent the removal.13 It was held that proceedings for the condemnation of a right of way could not be removed into a Federal court by a Federal corporation joined as a defendant, when it did not appear that such corporated under the Code of the District of Columbia (Act of March 3, 1901, amended January 31 and June 30, 1902) have the right to remove suits brought against them. See Lyons v. Bank of Discount, 154 Fed. 391. 831 St. at L. 794. See Kansas P. R. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 112 U. S. 414, 415, 28 L. ed. 794, 795, 5 Sup. Ct. 208. 9 Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 56 L. ed. 1205; Boyd v. Great Western Coal & Coke Co., 189 Fed. 115. Contra, Canary Oil Co. v. Standard Asphalt & Rubber Co., 182 Fed. 663. Sce Daly v. National Life Ins. Co., 64 Ind. 1; Knights of Pythias v. Kalinski, 163 U. S. 289, 41 L. ed. 163; 16 Sup. Ct. 1047. See, also, Harv. Law Review, xxv., pp. 291, 292, 295. 10 Union Timber Product Co. v. U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 252 Fed. 320. 11 Wagner Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Dis trict Lodge No. 9, I. A. of M., 252 Fed. 597. 12 Washington & I. R. Co. v. Coeur D'Alene R. & Nav. Co., 160 U. S. 77, 40 L. ed. 346; affirming 60 Fed. 981, 9 C. C. A. 303, 15 U. S. App. 359. 13 Washington & I. R. Co. v. Coeur D'Alene R. & Nav. Co., 160 U. S. 77; affirming 60 Fed. 981, 9 C. C. A. 303, 15 U. S. App. 359; Matter of Dunn, 212 U. S. 374, 53 L. ed. 558; Lund v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 78 Fed. 385; Martin v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas, 134 Fed. 134; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Bloom, 85 Tex. 279, 20 S. W. 133. See Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 4,827 (6 Blatchf. 362); S. C.. Fed. Cas. No. 4,828 (8 Blatchf. 243). Contra, Scott v. Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co., 112 Fed. 180; Hazard v. Durant, 9 R. I. 602; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Huber (Texas), 75 S. W. 547. See also, supra, § 24, notes 46-50, and infra, § 35. co-oration was concerned in the litigation, for in such case the record did not show that the case was one arising under. the Constitution and laws of the United States. 14 28. National banking associations. The Judicial Code provides concerning suits to which national banks are parties: that the District Courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction "of all cases commenced by the United States, or by direction of anyofficer thereof, against any national banking association, andi cases for winding up the affairs of any such bank; and of all Suits brought by any banking association established in the dist riet for which the court is held, under the provisions of title National Banks,' Revised Statutes, to enjoin the Comptroller of the Currency, or any receiver acting under his direction, as provided by said title. And all national banking associations established under the laws of the United States shall, for the purposes of all other actions by or against them, real, personal, or mixed, and all suits in equity, be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located." This differs from the previous law, which specifically provided: "In such cases the Circuit and District Courts shall not have jurisdiction other tha 11 such that they would have in cases between individual citizens of the same State. 2 This omission does not extend the jurisdiction beyond that granted by the previous statute.3 Under the former law it was held as follows: This deprives the Federal courts of jurisdiction of a suit by a national bank located in the District of Columbia unless some other Federal question is involved. The Federal Court has no jurisdiction of a suit by a stockholder against the directors of a National Bank for the violation of their liability at common law when no express.viplation of a Federal statute is set forth in the plaintiff's pleading.5 8 A Federal Court has jurisdiction of such a suit: by a receiver appointed by the Comptroller of the Currency since it is brought in the course of winding up the affairs of the bank. Of a suit for the appointment of a receiver of a national bank; of suits against the agents appointed by the shareholders of national banks in pursuance of the statutes of the United States; of a suit to charge a national bank with liability as a stockholder in another corporation, where the power of the defendant to hold stock is disputed; 9 of a suit by a national bank upon the bond of its cashier, conditioned upon the performance of his duties according to the law and the by-laws" of the bank; 10 of a suit against a national bank and its receiver to enforce a covenant in a lease to indemnify the lessor from loss of rent in case of re-entry because of a default in payment; 11 of a suit by stockholders against directors because of damage caused by their violation of a provision of the National Banking Laws; 12 of a suit by a national bank against officers to recover the amount of loans made in violation of the Revised Statutes of the United States; 13 of a suit by a creditor to recover money loaned to a national bank, where it is alleged that plaintiff was deceived and defrauded by a violation of the acts of Congress; 5 Ibid. Herrmann V. Edwards, 238 U. S. 107, 57 L. ed. 1224, 35 Sup. Ct. 839. 6 Bates v. Dresser, 229 Fed. 772. 7 Snohomish County Bank V. Puget Sound Nat. Bank, 81 Fed. 518; Lake Nat. Bank v. Wolfeborough Sav. Bank, C. C. A., 78 Fed. 517. For the jurisdiction of suits by or against such receivers, see infra, § 35. 8 International Trust Co. v. Weeks, 203 U. S. 364, 51 L. ed. 224; Snohomish County v. Puget Sound Nat. Bank, 81 Fed. 518; Guarantee Co. of North Dakota v. Hanway, 104 Fed. 369, 44 C. C. A. 312; International Trust Co. v. Weeks, 116 14 but Fed. 898; Weeks v. International 9 California Nat. Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 362, 42 L. ed. 198. 10 Walker v. Windsor Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 56 Fed. 76. 11 Providence Bldg. Co. v. Atlantic Nat. Bank, 228 Fed. 814. 12 Chesbrough v. Woodworth, 244 U. S. 72; Huff v. Union Nat. Bank, 173 Fed. 333. 13 National Bank of Commerce v. Wade, 84 Fed. 10; Abbott v. National Bank of Commerce, 56 P. 376, 20 Wash. 552. 14 Bailey v. Mosher, 63 Fed. 488, 11 C. C. A. 304, 27 U. S. App. 339. 15 not, where his pleading makes no reference to such statutes; nor of a suit by a depositor, for false representations in advertisements, statements and reports; 16 of a suit by a creditor of a national bank against a stockholder of the same to enforce a statutory liability created by U. S. R. S. § 5151; 17 of a suit by a stockholder to prevent obedience by the bank to a statute which is obnoxious to the Federal Constitution; 18 of a suit by a stockholder for an accounting by the directors for losses, caused through their disobedience of acts of Congress; of a suit in which there is a question as to the validity of a tax on a shareholder in a national bank.19 The Federal courts have jurisdiction of a suit by a national bank to assert a right protected by the Constitution of the United States, 20 or which it derives from an act of Congress, 21 when the construction of the Constitution or statute is necessarily involved. Where all the parties on the other side of the controversy are citizens of a different State from that where the national bank is located, the District Court may have jurisdiction of the case if the residence and value of the subject-matter fulfill the statutory requirements.22 § 29. Patent and copyright cases. Where the bill prays an injunction against the infringement of a patent or copyright, the suit arises under the laws of the United States; although the defendant does not dispute the validity of the patent or copyright; but resists his defense upon a license or other contract giving him a right to use the same, or upon the contention 15 Stuart v. Bank of Staplehurst (Nebraska), 78 N. W. 298. 16 Prescott v. Haughey, 65 Fed. 653. 17 Wyman v. Wallace, 201 U. S. 230, 50 L. ed. 738. 18 Larabee v. Dolley, 175 Fed. 365, 384. 19 Richards v. Rock Rapids, 72 Iowa, 77, 33 N. W. 372. 20 Larabee v. Dolley, 175 Fed. 365, 384. 21 Ibid. 22 Petri v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 142 U. S. 644, 35 L. ed. 1144; First Nat. Bank v. Forest, 40 Fed. 705. § 29. 1 White v. Rankin, 144 U. S. 628, 36 L. ed. 69; Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co., 185 U. S. 282, 46 L. ed. 910; reversing 109 Fed. 497, 48 C. C. A. 349; The Fair v. Kohler Die Specialty Co., 228 U. S. 22, where plaintiff's bill stated that defendant had obtained but had forfeited a li eense; Healy V. Sea Gull Specialty Co., 237 U. S. 479, where the plaintiff alleged this and also a stipulation in the license that in case of suit for infringement the measure of recovery should be the same as the royalty therein agreed |