CASES ADJUDGED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,

OCTOBER TERM, 1884.

PACIFIC RAILROAD REMOVAL CASES.

UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. MYERS.

IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.

SAME v. CITY OF KANSAS.

IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.

SAME v. KNUTH.

IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA.

SAME v. HARWOOD.

IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS.

TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. MoALLISTER.

VOL. CXV-1

Syllabus.

TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. KIRK.

SAME v. MURPHY.

IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.

Argued November 20, 21, 1884.-Decided May 4, 1885.

Corporations of the United States, created by and organized under acts of Congress, are entitled, under the Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, to remove into the Circuit Courts of the United States suits brought against them in State courts on the ground that such suits are suits "arising under the laws of the United States."

The Union Pacific Railway Company is, as to its road, property and franchises in Kansas, a corporation de facto created and organized under acts of Congress; and as to the same in Nebraska, it is strictly and purely a corporation deriving all its corporate and other powers from acts of Congress The Texas & Pacific Railway Company is also a corporation, deriving its corporate powers from acts of Congress.

These companies are entitled, under the Act of March 3, 1875, to have all suits brought against them in State courts removed to Circuit Courts of the United States, on the ground that they are suits arising under the laws of the United States.

An objection that a petition for removal was not verified by oath, or that there was delay in filing it, may be waived by delay in taking the objection. In Kansas, a proceeding before a Mayor of a city and a jury to take land for widening a street, and to ascertain the value of the land taken, and to assess the cost thereof on the property benefited, is not, while pending there, a suit at law within the meaning of the Act of March 3, 1875, authorizing the removal of causes; but it becomes such a suit at law when transferred to the Circuit Court of the State on appeal.

In proceedings, under the Act of the Legislature of Kansas, passed in 1875, for widening the streets of Kansas City, the Union Pacific Railway Company had a controversy distinct and separate from like controversies of other owners of land, affected by the proceedings: and the fact that the removal of the controversy of the Railway Company to the Circuit Court of the United States may have an indirect effect upon the proceedings in the State courts as to the other owners, furnishes no good reason for depriving the Company of its right to remove its suit.

The questions argued and decided in these cases arose under the statutes regulating the removal of causes from State courts. The facts in regard to each case are stated in the opinion of the court.

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. John F. Dillon for Union Pacific Railway Company.

Mr. Walter D. Davidge, Mr. John F. Dillon, Mr. John C. Brown, and Mr. Wager Swayne for Texas & Pacific Railway Company.

Mr. W. Hallett Phillips for all defendants in error.

Mr. A. H. Garland for defendants in error in Texas & Pacific cases.

Mr. T. P. Fenlon filed a brief for Myers, defendant in

error.

Mr. W. H. Munger and Mr. E. H. Gray filed a brief for Knuth, defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court. The principal question involved in these cases is whether a suit brought in a State court against a corporation of the United States may be removed by such corporation into the Circuit Court of the United States, on the ground of its being a corporation organized under a law of the United States. The plaintiff in error in four of the cases is the Union Pacific Railway Company, and in the other three cases is the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. They contend that they bave such a right of removal, either under the removal act of July 27, 1868, 15 Stat. 227, now forming § 640 of Revised Statutes; or under the act of March 3, 1875, entitled "An Act to determine the jurisdiction of Circuit Courts of the United States, and to regulate the removal of causes from State courts, and for other purposes," 18 Stat. 470; or both. Whether the corporations of the United States, organized under acts of Congress, have or have not this right of removal is the principal question in these cases.

The suits were all brought in State courts against the said corporations severally. In the first case, Myers, a switchman at Armstrong, in Kansas, in the employ of the Union Pacific Railway Company, sued the company for an injury alleged to

Opinion of the Court.

have been sustained by him through the carelessness of the company or its agents, in the construction of the coupling of its cars. The company filed an answer, and at the same time a petition for the removal of the cause to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, and the proper bond required by the law. The petition for removal stated that the petitioner was a corporation other than a banking corporation, and organized under a law of the United States, namely, an act of Congress entitled "An Act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes," approved July 1st, 1862; and that, in accordance with said act and the acts amendatory and supplemental thereto, the petitioner had exercised and did exercise its corporate functions and powers.

The petition then proceeded as follows:

"That February 1st, 1880, pursuant to sec. 16 of the said act of July 1, 1862, and of the act of July 2d, 1864, the Kansas Pacific Railway Company, a corporation created by the Territorial Legislature of Kansas, and organized under the laws of said Territory, and the Denver Pacific Railway & Telegraph Company, a corporation created and organized under the laws of the Territory of Colorado, both of which said companies are mentioned in said acts of Congress and their said railroads by said acts made a part of the Union Pacific Railroad system, were, by agreement, consolidated with the Union Pacific Railroad Company. Your petitioner and said consolidated company, by agreement, as by said acts authorized, assumed and adopted the name of The Union Pacific Railway Company, which company, consolidated, assumed, took, and from thenceforth had and has, by virtue of said agreement of consolidation, possession and ownership of all the railroads and other property, real and personal, of said constituent companies, and has and does operate and manage the same under and by authority of said acts of Congress, and is governed and controlled by said acts, and is to all intents and purposes and in fact a corporation under the laws of the United States.