BBOWNBLIi V. T. Jt B. B. CO. 703 �state, under a law requiring that such a corporation should net do business within the state until it had filed a stipulation agreeing that certain service within the state should be good, and vfhich had filed the required stipulation, was found within the state within the meaning of the laws of the United States respecting bringing suits where a defendant la found. Thia case is attempted to be distinguished from that on account of the express stipulation, but there is in reality no difference. A corporation putting itself in a place in order to be found there, may be found there aa well as if it agreed to be found there. �The statute of the state applies to every kind of process known to the laws of the state. This court has not exclu- sive jurisdiction of this class of cases, but only concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of the state ; and the process by which suits are brought in this court, and its mode of service, are the same as those of the courts of the state. U. S. Eev. St. § 913. So this process is process known to the laws of the state. Ex "pwrte SchoUenberger, 96 U. S. 369. It is true that jurisdiction was denied in similar cases — in Day v. Rubber Go., 1 Blatchf. 628, and some other cases foUowing that — but those cases were expressly overruled in Ex parte SchoUenberger. Some suggestions have been made about the law of this circuit upon this subject, as if it might be differ- ent from that of other circuits; but, although different modes and rules of practice may prevail in the different circuits, the laws of the United States which govern this matter — and it is a matter of law and right, and not of practice merely — are the same in ail the circuits. �Attention has been called to Balt. e Ohio R. Co. v. Noels, to appear in 32 Gratt., (21 Alb. Law Jour. 477,) holding that a corporation of Maryland leasing and operating a railroad in Virginia is so a citizen of Virginia that a suit against it by a citizen of Virginia is not removable to the United States courts, as showing that this defendant is so a citizen of Ver- mont that this suit in favor of a citizen of Vermont is not removable. That case seems to cover this, and if its doc- trines are to be followed this suit should be dismissed. That ����
