Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
right of eminent domain cannot be questioned by a private landowner in a proceeding to condemn land); Bonaparte v. Baltimore, H & L. R.R. Co., 75 Md. 340, 23 A. 784 (1892) (the existence of a de facto corporation may not be challenged in a collateral way but must be brought quo warranto ); Reisner v. Strong, 24 Kan. 410 (1880) (a de facto railroad may exercise the right of eminent domain and the legal existence of a de facto corporation can only be questioned by the state in a proceeding for that purpose); The National Docks Railway Co. v. The Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, 32 N.J.Eq. 755 (1880) (when corporation is de facto, private party cannot challenge, but action, instead, must be instituted by the state); The Aurora and Cincinnati R.R. Co., v. Miller, 56 Ind. 88 (1877) ; McAuley v. Columbus, Chicago and Indian
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding
B. holding that misleading testimony regarding the purpose of a proceeding did not warrant inquiry into the result of the proceeding
C. holding that a proceeding under section 547 is a core proceeding
D. recognizing that proceeding in the nature guo warranto was pending to challenge organization of railroad rather than through condemnation proceeding
E. holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.