§ 2967. Alignment of parties to ascertain diversity. Because of the terms of Judicial Code, § 24, it is not the nominal alignment of the parties as plaintiffs and defendants, but their actual alignment on different sides in interest of the "matter in controversy" which is "between" them, that confers jurisdiction.72 In a stockholders' suit the corporation is usually aligned as a defendant when alleged to be under control of defendant officers or stockholders, and in other cases may sometimes be aligned as a coplaintiff.73 While purely nominal parties may be disregarded for this purpose,74 officers are not cited 391, supra, as to what is inhabitancy or regular place of business. 72 It is the duty of the court in determining whether there was the requisite diversity of citizenship to arrange the parties with respect to the actual controversy looking beyond the formal arrangement made by the bill." Helm v. Zarecor, 222 U. S. 32, 56 L. Ed. 77. On a bill to declare the true ownership of a church publishing corporation in favor of members of an unincorporated church against a faction also unincorporated claiming to be the regular church organization, the corporation was properly a defendant. Id. To same effect on facts similar except that a local church of the same denomination and factions was involved, see Sharpe v. Bonham, 224 U. S. 241, 56 L. Ed. 747. On a bill by a mortgagee corporation against a city and the mortgagor corporation, to enforce a contract between the city and the mortgagor and for injunction, the mortgagor will be aligned with the mortgagee though named as defendant where the object was to get a federal trial of an issue decided against the mortgagor in the state court. Dawson v. Columbia Ave. Sav. Fund, Safe Deposit, Title & Trust Co., 197 U. S. 178, 49 L. Ed. 713. A coal selling corporation, plaintiff, has different causes of action shown on a bill alleging a conspiracy to cut off coal production by a strike and thus injure it from those which coal producing companies have against their individual co-defendants. Hence, plaintiff and defendant corporations cannot be aligned together. Carroll v. Chesapeake & O. Coal Agency Co., 124 Fed. 305. 73 In the case of a stockholder's suit the corporation will be aligned as a defendant when controlled by individual defendants. See chapter on Stock & Stockholders, subd. Remedies of Stockholders, etc., infra. Diversity exists in a stockholder's suit where he and the corporation and its receiver are of one state, and the other defendants against whom relief is sought are of another. Kelly v. Dolan, 218 Fed. 966. In a stockholder's suit, brought while a statutory receiver has title to corporate property and choses, the receiver may be aligned with the stockholder, their interest in the suit being the same, so as to produce requisite diversity. Kelly v. Dolan, 218 Fed. 966. 74 A corporation of California can sue a bank of Iowa in Iowa for recovery of a specific fund embezzled by an officer of plaintiff and turned over to defendant, where the officer though joined is a formal defendant. White Swan Mines Co., Ltd., v. Balliet, 134 Fed. 1004. Inability to serve the corporation which is a nominal defendant does not defeat jurisdiction. Hence the to be regarded as nominal parties when they are joined for discovery.75 § 2968. Inferior and special jurisdictions. The ecclesiastical courts of England had no jurisdiction over corporations at common law for the reason that such courts acted only for the health of the soul and enforced their sentences only by spiritual censure.76 The jurisdiction of inferior courts is entirely defined by the constitutions and statutes. It is impossible and inappropriate to essay any analysis of all existing statutes on their jurisdiction over corporate parties.77 Subject to constitutional limitations, the legislature may confer such jurisdiction as it sees fit.78 The typical inferior tribunal is that of the justice of the peace. In an earlier day a con corporation can be disregarded where bondholders sue its officers for fraud and deceit. Slater Trust Co. v. Randolph-Macon Coal Co., 166 Fed. 171. 75 Officers joined for discovery are not to be regarded as nominal parties. Hence jurisdiction is ousted by their common citizenship with some of defendants. Doyle v. San Diego Land & Town Co., 43 Fed. 349. 76 1 Bl. Comm. 477. Blackstone seems to regard this as bad reasoning, for he adds that it, if "carried to its full extent, would demonstrate the impropriety of these courts interfering in any temporal rights whatsoever." 77 The statutes of the particular state and affecting the particular court must be consulted. That it is wholly statutory, see Joseph Speidel Grocery Co. v. Warder, 56 W. Va. 602, 49 S. E. 534. See also cases in notes following. 78 To give greater jurisdiction in amount than is had over natural persons may be offensive to a constitutional provision that they shall be suable in like cases as natural persons are (Const. 1901, § 240). See dictum in Brown V. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 87 Ala. 370, 6 So. 295; repudiated in Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Whitehead, 109 Ala. 495, 19 So. 705, The municipal court of New York is not a new inferior court but a reorganized continuation of various local courts; hence the statute giving it jurisdiction over "foreign corporations having an office in the City of New York" did not create an inferior court with a special jurisdiction greater than allowed by Const. art. 6, § 18. Worthington V. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 164 N. Y. 81, 58 N. E. 102. Under the Municipal Court Code (adopted later) the foregoing law was changed to dispense with necessity of an office in New York City, and this was also held to be not an extension of the jurisdiction so defined and limited to that given to the county courts. Degnon v. Cook & Wilson's Greatest Wild Animal Circus on Earth, 98 N. Y. Misc. 251, 162 N. Y. Supp. 1051. See earlier cases of Heimerdinger v. American Mfg. Co., 28 N. Y. Misc. 773, 58 N. Y. Supp. 1022; Reiser v. Charles F. Parker & Co., 27 N. Y. Misc. 205, 57 N. Y. Supp. 745, where act conferring jurisdiction on municipal court was unconstitutional. Code Civ. Proc. § 263, giving jurisdiction to the city court where the cause of action arose within the city, is not contrary to the constitution, and embraces actions against corporations. Kirchner v. George C. Flint siderable body of opinion denied his jurisdiction over corporations on the theory that the machinery for the acquisition of jurisdiction found in the justices' practice was so inadequate that an exclusion of jurisdiction was implied. Partly by alterations of practice and amendments of statute, and partly through a more liberalized construction, this doctrine has now waned.79 Generally speaking, the constitutional or statutory jurisdiction of justices of the peace includes actions by or against corporations, provided the limits in amount and subjectmatter or in the nature of the action are not exceeded,80 and by the better and modern rule mere want of defined practice or process, or the necessity of adaptations of practice, afford no conclusive reason for a construction which denies such jurisdiction.81 In an early New York case, the distinction was made that corporations could sue be Co., 19 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 368, 11 N. Y. Supp. 741. 79 See cases cited in notes following in this section. 80 Dennis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 86 S. C. 258, 68 S. E. 465. See also Harding v. New Haven Township, 3 Ohio 227, holding incorporated township can be sued. Suit may be brought either in county of principal office of domestic corporation or in county where the cause of action arose. Joseph Speidel Grocery Co. v. Warder, 56 W. Va. 602, 49 S. E. 534. A breach of duty which would have been avoided had the corporation performed a covenant to make cattle guards at a crossing is none the less a tort which may be sued before a justice (Code, c. 50, § 26). Harrow v. Ohio River R. Co., 38 W. Va. 711, 18 S. E. 926. A statute denying them such jurisdiction, which the constitution gave, is void. More v. Woodruff, 5 Ark. 214. And such jurisdiction within limits extends to garnishment of the corporation. Woodruff v. Griffith, 5 Ark. 354. 81 Loomis v. Commercial Bank, 4 How. (Miss.) 660. Inability to issue a distringas is no obstacle when the justice can issue summons and where actual personal appearance is not requisite to jurisdiction. Union Bank v. Lowe, Meigs (Tenn.) 225. By statute, process can run outside the county to a foreign corporation but not under all circumstances to natural persons. Allen-Fleming Co. v. Southern R. Co., 145 N. C. 37, 58 S. E. 793. Action can be maintained against it and stockholders jointly, though some of them are nonresidents and not servable, and though a "clerk's" indorsement on process is required. (Justice can indorse as his own clerk.) Milroy v. Spurr Mountain Iron Min. Co., 43 Mich. 231, 5 N. W. 287. Power of justice to obtain jurisdiction of corporation which has no managing agent or other person within statute, see Jepson v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 22 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 434, 20 N. Y. Supp. 300. Want of power to send process for witnesses to another county is not the test of jurisdiction. Dennis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 86 S. C. 258, 68 S. E. 465. In the earlier Michigan cases jurisdiction over foreign corporations was denied because of the lack of any way to obtain jurisdiction in such courts, the modes of process being inapplica fore a justice, but could not be sued because of the lack of a means of obtaining jurisdiction.82 The jurisdiction usually extends only to a fixed maximum amount.83 Jurisdiction is often made concurrent with that of the court of general jurisdiction up to the statutory limits,84 but when it has a minimum jurisdiction leaving to the inferior courts cases below that amount, a construction will be favored giving the inferior courts jurisdiction of corporation cases within that minimum, because otherwise no court would have it.85 The jurisdiction therefore extends to ble to such courts. American Exp. Co. v. Conant, 45 Mich. 642, 8 N. W. 574; Hebel v. Amazon Ins. Co., 33 Mich. 400; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Owen, 30 Mich. 441; Brigham v. Eglinton, 7 Mich. 291. The same result based on the same lack was reached in New Jersey (explaining that distringas was obsolete, but that justices could proceed only according to defined process). State Bank v. Van Horn, 4 N. J. L. 382. 82 Hotchkiss v. First Religious Soc. of Homer, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 356. 83 A justice has no jurisdiction of an action sounding in debt for a tortious violation of a by-law for $100 damages. White Water Valley Canal Co. v. Boden, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 130. By statute a justice has jurisdiction without regard to value in actions against railroads for the killing of animals within the township (2 Wagn. St. 808). Hudson v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 53 Mo. 525. 84 Justices of the peace "in the county where the cause of action or some part thereof arose" have up to the limit of amount concurrent jurisdiction with the county court. WestOkla. ern Paving Co. v. Binion, 150 Pac. 898. The city court of New York being given jurisdiction over defendant foreign corporations by Code Civ. Proc. § 315, has, reading in section 1780, jurisdiction over them when sued by nonresidents in proper cases. Susquehanna Woolen Co. v. Imperial Coal & Coke Co., 66 N. Y. Misc. 621, 122 N. Y. Supp. 214; Kline v. Imperial Coal & Coke Co., 66 N. Y. Misc. 616, 122 N. Y. Supp. 211. In the city court of New York plaintiff need not be a resident of the city but only of the state to give jurisdiction of "any cause of action" (construing Code Civ. Proc. §§ 315, 1780). Maas v. Cunard S. S. Co., 19 N. Y. Misc. 100, 43 N. Y. Supp. 219. 85 A construction will not be adopted which restricts their jurisdiction and leaves no other court to exercise it. Loomis V. Commercial Bank, 4 How. (Miss.) 660. A statute enacting that a corporation may be sued or may sue in any county in which it has a usual place of business only fixes venue and does not confer jurisdiction over foreign corporations on the municipal court of Boston. But a statute providing that in inferior courts venue of an action against "A defendant who is not an inhabitant of" the state "if personal service is made within' the state implies that such court has jurisdiction by service on the Commissioner of Corporations, the foreign corporation having a place of business within the state. Potter v. Lapointe Mach. Tool Co., 201 Mass. 557, 88 N. E. 418. [§ 2968 foreign corporations 86 of every kind not necessarily excluded in language or the nature of the tribunal 87 and not impliedly excluded by want of any legal means of obtaining jurisdiction.88 Minor courts have jurisdiction of forcible entry and detainer suits or dispossession proceedings against corporations, where they are regarded as "persons" against whom the service of the necessary notices and process can go.89 There may be jurisdiction of garnishment proceedings even though there is none on original process,90 and a jurisdiction over foreign corporations by attachment is not conversely applicable to domestic ones.91 In Missouri an early statute withdrew corporations from the justices' jurisdiction except in given particulars.92 Inferior or limited courts in some instances have jurisdiction dependent on the corporation's "doing business" or having an "office" 98 86 By How. St. § 3723, jurisdiction over foreign corporations was conferred, though prior to 1881 justices of the peace had it only in attachment and garnishee cases. Gallagher v. American Exp. Co., 56 Mich. 13, 22 N. W. 96. Rev. St. 1889, § 6123, giving jurisdiction over corporations includes foreign corporations. Rechnitzer v. Missouri, K & T. Ry. Co., 60 Mo. App. 409. A penal action can be brought in any county where the foreign corporation does business or has property. Allen-Fleming Co. v. Southern R. Co., 145 N. C. 37, 58 S. E. 793. The jurisdiction of a magistrate of actions for injury to person or property up to $100 includes corporations both domestic and foreign. Dennis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 86 S. C. 258, 68 S. E. 465. 87 Statutes construed as extending jurisdiction over foreign insurance as well as other foreign corporations. McLean v. Prudential Ins. Co., 130 Mich. 591, 90 N. W. 405. 88 Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. v. Carty, 53 N. J. L. 336, 21 Atl. 851. See also Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Ditton, 36 N. J. L. 361. 89 A district court has power to serve a corporation in dispossession 26 La. Ann. 531. 91 Foreign corporation" in the attachment statute excludes all domestic corporations of the state. Boley v. Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Co., 12 Ohio St. 139. 92 Statute exempted all railroad companies from justice's jurisdiction except as therein or in their charters provided. This was not overcome by a charter right to sue or be sued "in all courts and places whatsoever."' Fatchell v. St. Louis & I. M. R. Co., 28 Mo. 178. General Railroad Law, § 12, gives jurisdiction of actions by laborers against railroad corporations. Grannahan v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 30 Mo. 546; Mooney v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 28 Mo. 570. 93 A county court in Georgia has jurisdiction if the corporation "resides" within its district though the animal was killed (on which suit is based) in another district of the same |