a citizen, or that the incorporated citizens of one state might sue a citizen of another state, in the federal courts, by its corporate name, this court would not have felt itself justified in declaring that such a law transcended the constitution.

The controversy is substantially between aliens, suing by a corporate name, and a citizen, or between citizens of one state, suing by a corporate name, and those of another state. When these are said to be substantially the parties to the controversy, the court does not mean to liken it to the case of a trustee. A trustee is a real person capable of being a citizen or an alien, who has the whole legal estate in himself. At law, he is the real proprietor, and he represents himself, and sues in his own right. But in this case the corporate name represents persons who are members of the corporation.

If the constitution would authorize congress to give the courts of the union jurisdiction in this case, in consequence of the character of the members of the corporation, then the judicial act ought to be construed to give it. For the term citizen ought to be understood as it is used in the constitution, and as it is used in other laws. That is, to describe the real persons who come into court, in this case, under their corporate name.

That corporations composed of citizens are considered by the legislature as citizens, under certain. circumstances, is to be strongly inferred from the registering act. It never could be intended that an American registered vessel, abandoned to an insurance company composed of citizens, should lose her character as an American vessel; and yet this would be the consequence of declaring that the members of the corporation were, to every intent and purpose, out of view, and merged in the corporation.

The court feels itself authorized by the case in 12 Mod. on a question of jurisdiction, to look to

V.

BANK U.S. the character of the individuals who compose the DEVEAUX. Corporation, and they think that the precedents of this court, though they were not decisions on argument, ought not to be absolutely disregarded.

If a corporation may sue in the courts of the union, the court is of opinion that the averment in this case is sufficient.

Being authorized to sue in their corporate name, they could make the averment, and it must apply to the plaintiffs as individuals, because it could not be true as applied to the corporation.

Judgment reversed; plea in abatement overruled, and cause remanded.

Judge LIVINGSTON, having an interest in the question, gave no opinion.

MATTHEWS v. ZANE'S LESSEE.

The lands in.

the Zaneville

ERROR to the supreme court of the state of cluded within Ohio for the county of Muskingum, in an action of district by the ejectment brought by Zane's Lessee against Matact of the 3d thews, in which both parties claimed title under the March, 1803,

could not, af laws of the United States. The question of jurister that date, diction in this case was settled at last term. (Ante, be sold at the vol. 4. p. 382.)

Marietta land-

office.

The remaining question was, whether the plaintiff in error, or the defendant, had the title to the west fraction of section No. 15. in township No. 12. in range No. 13. in the state of Ohio.

This question arose upon a special verdict, which stated the following facts.

On the 7th of February, 1804, the office of re

V.

ZANE'S
LESSEE.

ceiver of public moneys at Marietta then being MATTHEWS vacant, Matthews applied to the register of the land-office at Marietta, for the purchase of that fraction, who received the application, and gave Matthews a certificate thereof.

On the 26th of March, 1804, a register and receiver were appointed for the Zaneville district, and also a receiver of public moneys for the Marietta district, who commenced the duties of his office on the first of May, in that year.

After the 12th of May, in the same year, Matthews purchased the land at the Marietta land-office, by making such payments, and receiving such certificates, as are prescribed by law.

On the 21st of May, 1804, the land-office was first opened at Zaneville, and the sales of land commenced therein.

On the 17th of the same May, a schedule was forwarded from the surveyor-general, purporting to be a complete list of the lands lying within the Zaneville district, which had been before sold at the Marietta land-office, and in which the land in controversy was not included.

Subsequent to the passage of the law for the erection of the Zaneville district, and prior to the time when the office of receiver of public moneys for the Marietta district became vacant, two entries were made in the Marietta land-office, of land lying within the Zaneville district, which entries and sales were acknowledged as good and valid by the government of the United States, who considered Matthews's entry as void, and the secretary of the treasury has directed his purchase-money to be repaid to him. The two tracts, the sales of which were confirmed by the government of the United States, were in the surveyor-general's schedule returned as sold at Marietta; but the land in controversy was not included in that schedule, because

V.

ZANE'S LESSEE.

MATTHEWS the register of the land-office at Marietta had not made his return, as by law directed, to the surveyorgeneral, who had no guide by which to make out the schedule, but the returns of the register. The officers of the Zaneville land-office were directed by the secretary of the treasury to receive the schedule as the only evidence of what land had been sold at Marietta.

On the 26th of May, 1804, Zane purchased, at the Zaneville land-office the land in controversy, by making such payments, and receiving such a certificate, as by law are prescribed, at which time Matthews produced his certificate from the register of the Marietta land-office, and gave notice of his having purchased the same land.

Zane's purchase was confirmed by the secretary of the treasury.

P. B. Key, for the plaintiff in error, contended,

1. That the purchase made by Matthews was legal and valid. And,

2. That the defendant in error was not entitled to

recover.

That this subject may be distinctly understood, it may be necessary concisely to state the land system of the United States.

In 1785, the old congress passed an ordinance for the survey and sale of public lands in the north-western territory. Seven ranges of townships were laid off, and sales made at New-York, to a considerable extent. The Indian wars that soon followed, closed the sales. But after General Wayne's treaty at Greeneville, in 1795, congress took up the subject again, and in May, 1796, passed an act for appointing a surveyor-general, and directing surveys and sales. Vol. 3. p. 293. These surveys could not be completed till the end of the year 1799. The act

V.

LESSEE.

of the 10th of May, 1800, vol. 5. p. 174. established MATTHEWS
the present system, by which four land-offices were ZANE'S
to be opened, viz. at Cincinnati, Chilicothe, Marietta,
and Steubenville. That at Marietta was for the
lands lying east of the sixteenth range of townships,
south of the military lands, and south of a line drawn
due west from the north-west corner of the first town-
ship of the second range to the military lands. A
register of the land-office, and a receiver of public
moneys, was to be appointed for each of the offices.
A person wishing to purchase any of the lands was
to pay to the treasurer of the United States, or the
receiver of public moneys, one twentieth part of the
purchase-money besides certain fees, and take his
receipt therefor, which he was to carry to the regis
ter, who was to enter his application in a book, sta-
ting the date of the application, the date of the
receipt, and the number of the section, or half sec-
tion, township and range applied for. No lands
were to be sold at less than two dollars an acre,
one fourth, including the one twentieth, in forty
days, one fourth in two years, one fourth in three
years, and the residue in four years, with interest.
A discount of 8 per cent. per annum was to be allow-
ed for prompt payment. Upon payment of the
whole purchase-money a patent was to be issued by
the president of the United States.

Thus stood the land system, and the mode of purchasing and acquiring title until congress, desirous of bringing more lands into the market, passed an act on the 3d of March, 1803, vol. 6. p. 291. by the 6th section of which, a new district was created called the Zaneville district, which covered part of the lands in Marietta district, and, among others, the lands in controversy, and certain lands in the military tract which had not been surveyed. This act did not prescribe the time when the land-office should be opened at Zaneville, nor when the officers should be appointed.

The first question which presents itself under this law is, did it prevent a continuance of sales at Ma

1