Brief for the Appellee. Ex parte Coburn, 1 Cow. 568; Dodge v. McClintock, 47 N. H. 386; Forbes v. Balsenseifer, 74 Ill. 183; Anderson v. Buchanan, 8 Ind. 133; Richter et al. v. Irwin, 28 id. 26. The Tolleston Club was a mere voluntary association, while the Tolleston Club of Chicago is an incorporation. For many and most purposes it is, in law, an artificial person of this State, entirely different in law and in fact from the Tolleston Club. The lease was not to the incorporation, but to the voluntary association, and that ceased when the association ceased to be as it was organized at the date of the lease. The court has no jurisdiction to grant the injunction. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. P. and A. Telegraph Co. 49 Ill. 92. Messrs. JEWETT, NORTON & LARNED, for the appellee: Corporations, etc., not for pecuniary profit, formed under chapter 32 of the Revised Statutes, are made capable, in their corporate names, of taking, holding, etc., real and personal estate for purposes of their organization. Rev. Stat. sec. 31, chap. 32. An easement is a privilege. It is not a right to land, nor to any corporeal interest in land, and a grant of a right of way does not convey the soil over which the way passes. Goddard's Law of Easements, 4; Cook County v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R. R. Co. 35 Ill. 464; Washburn on Easements, 3, 5. The right of a corporation to hold property can only be questioned by the State in a direct proceeding. Hayward v. Davidson, 41 Ind. 214; Baker v. Neff, 73 Ind. 68. The lease, if made in view of the proposed incorporation of the club, or confirmed by acknowledgment after incorporation, is not avoided by the misnomer of the corporation. Northwestern Distilling Co. v. Brant, 69 Ill. 658; Board of Education v. Greenebaum, 39 id. 609; Tallcott Mountain T. Co. v. Marshall, 11 Conn. 186; First Parish in Sutton v. Cole, 3 Pick. 237; Chadsey v. McCreery, 27 Ill. 253; Kentucky Opinion of the Court. Seminary v. Wallace, 15 B. Mon. 35; Burton v. American Tract Society, 23 Vt. 336; Potter on Corporations, p. 17, sec. 12. The canal could not be used in the manner and for the purposes contemplated by the lease without the use of the walk, and therefore this use must have passed by the lease, as an appurtenant to the canal. Angell on Watercourses, (6th ed.) secs. 158, 167, 358. The acts of the parties to this lease clearly evinced their understanding that it included the necessary path on the bank, for such path was constantly used without question, and this construction of the lease by the parties themselves should be especially regarded. Seavers v. Cleary, 75 Ill. 349. The courts of equity may decree the specific performance of contracts respecting land situated beyond their jurisdiction. Story's Eq. Jur. sec. 744. The fact that property the subject matter of the controversy is located in a foreign country, does not prevent the court from exercising jurisdiction, when all the parties to the transaction are within its reach, and amenable to its process. High on Injunctions, 105; Kerr on Injunctions, 9; Wells on Jurisdiction, 80; 2 Spence's Equity, 6, 7; White v. White, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 208; 1 Ves. Sr. 444; Hawley v. James, 7 Paige, (N. Y.) 213; Guerant v. Fowler, 1 Hen. & M. (Va.) 5; Episcopal Church v. Wiley, 2 Hill, (S. C. Ch.) 584; McDowell v. Read, 3 La. Ann. 391; Miller v. Block, 2 Jones, (N. C. Law,) 341; Ward v. Lathrop, 4 Texas, 180; Butterworth v. Kinsey, 14 id. 495; Wood v. Warner, 2 McCarter, (N. J. Eq.) 81; Massey v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; Mitchell v. Bunch, 2 Paige's Ch. 606; Clasen v. Corley, 5 Sandf. 461; Burnley v. Stevenson, 24 Ohio St. 474. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court: This was a bill filed by the Tolleston Club of Chicago, for an injunction against Elijah S. Alexander, to restrain him Opinion of the Court. from interfering with the complainant in the use of a certain. canal and foot-path along its bank, in respect of which complainant claims a right of way. The case, in its general outline, as made by the proofs, is, that during the spring of 1871 certain gentlemen of Chicago formed an association called the "Tolleston Club," the object of which was shooting and fishing in the Tolleston marshes. They purchased a tract of sixty acres of land in Lake county, in the State of Indiana, situate about one-half mile from the Little Calumet river, in said county, upon which were erected. a club-house, and barn, outbuildings, and large boat-house, the buildings being of the value of some $10,000. The fishing and hunting of the members of the club could only be prosecuted in the Little Calumet river and the marshes adjacent to the banks thereof, in front of the club-house. About that time Alexander, with S. H. Turrill and James H. Foster, all being members of the club, purchased certain lands between the land of the club and the river and marsh. In the fall of 1871 the club excavated a canal across this land of Alexander, Turrill and Foster, with their knowledge and consent, at a cost of $2500, it being for the purpose of passing boats from the river to the boat-house, the latter being at the upper end of the canal, about one hundred yards from the club-house. The water being seldom of sufficient depth for the passage of boats, the members of the club were accustomed to tow or pole their boats from the marsh as far as the depth of the water would allow, and walk the rest of the distance, following a uniform path along the canal. The path was used only for foot travel. There was a plank walk, composed of two planks, and being about three feet wide, put down along this path, from the club-house to the marsh, in 1875. On the 3d day of March, 1873, the members of the club, at a meeting thereof, resolved to incorporate under the general act of this State for forming corporations "not for pecuniary profit." The license of the Tolleston Club of Chicago was Opinion of the Court. issued March 27, 1873, and at a meeting of the incorporators on June 6, 1873, the constitution and by-laws of the former club were adopted, its debts and liabilities assumed, and its property and effects received. Alexander, Turrill and Foster executed the following lease to the Tolleston Club: "Whereas, E. S. Alexander, S. H. Turrill and James H. Foster are the owners in fee simple of section 18, in the town of Tolleston, Lake county, Indiana, and whereas the Tolleston Club has cut a small canal from the property owned by the said club near and adjacent to said property of Alexander, Turrill and Foster, over and through said section 18, to the Little Calumet river, which is to be used by the said club for the security of their boats, and other sporting purposes. Now, in consideration thereof, know all men by these presents, that we, the said E. S. Alexander, S. H. Turrill and J. H. Foster, parties of the first part, and the Tolleston Club, party of the second part, "Witnesseth: That the said parties of the first part do hereby lease to the said party of the second part, for and in consideration of the work done upon the said canal, and one dollar to the said parties of the first part in hand paid, all the ground in section 18 now used for said canal, for and during the existence of said club,-all the expense of making, repairing, keeping and protecting the said canal, now and at all times, to be paid by the said club, the said parties of the first part to be saved harmless from the same; and whenever said club shall cease to exist as now organized, this lease, and all the rights thereunder, shall be determined and cease, and the said parties of the first part shall resume possession without let or hindrance. "Witness our hands and seals this fourth day of March, A. D. 1873. E. S. ALEXANDER, [SEAL.] Opinion of the Court. Foster and Turrill subsequently conveyed all their interest in the above mentioned land to Alexander,-Foster on June 26, 1874, and Turrill on March 25, 1876. The club, in 1881, purchased about one thousand acres more of these marsh lands on the river, for shooting grounds for its members, at a cost of some $20,000. The evidence is, that there are no means of access from the club-house grounds to this marsh and the river other than by way of this canal and foot-path, except by going several miles out of the way, and going by way of the river; that if this access to the river were cut off, it would very much depreciate in value the property of the club, as some witnesses say, would destroy the club. The canal was of much benefit to the land of Alexander, draining some thirty acres of it. There was no interruption in the use of the walk or canal, or objection thereto, till in 1881. The circuit court decreed the relief prayed. The decree, on appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District, was affirmed, and the defendant appealed to this court. Appellant's counsel contend that the decree can not be sustained, for the following reasons: First, the power to acquire and hold lands, easements or right of way is not delegated to or conferred upon the appellee by the statute of 1872, under which appellee is incorporated; second, such power is not delegated to any corporation by the statutes or laws of the State of Indiana, where the land is situated, and is contrary to its policy; third, there is no evidence in support of appellee's claim of easement or right of way in or upon appellant's lands; the Tolleston Club has no legal existence; by the terms of the lease, all its rights thereunder have ceased and are terminated; a parol license will not support an easement; fourth, the court below has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. The statute of 1872 referred to, in section 31, of chapter 32, of the Revised Statutes of 1874, provides that “corporations, associations and societies, not for pecuniary profit, |