Page images
PDF
EPUB

which clearly shows the State by which corporation itself was organized or created will be entirely adequate. Thus an allegation that "the defendant is a body corporate by an act of the general assembly of Maryland, was held sufficient.”1 In Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French,' the suit was brought in the circuit court for Indiana by citizens of Ohio, and in the declaration they "complain of the Lafayette Insurance Company, a citizen of the State of Indiana." This was clearly insufficient, but the court held that the defect was cured by an allegation, in the replication, that "the defendants are a corporation, created under the laws of the State of Indiana, having its principal place of business in that State." But where the statute under which the company was organized is a public law, of which court is bound to take judicial notice, it is not necessary to go even that far, and an averment simply that the company is a citizen of the State, without any statement that it is organized under its laws, has been held sufficient."

1 Marshall v. Baltimore, etc. R. Co., 16 How. 325.

218 How. 404.

8

3 Covington Draw-bridge Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. 227; s. c., 21 How. 112.

ARTICLE II.-SERVICE OF PROCESS ISSUED BY FEDERAL

SECTION.

COURTS.

304. Defendant Company "Found" only Within the District of the State of its Creation.

305. Another View-"Found" Wherever Present by its Agents "Doing Business."

306. Effect of Service-State Practice Followed.

307. Facts Sufficient to Establish Jurisdiction.

308. "Inhabitant" of the District-Amendatory Act of March 3, 1887.

309. Act of 1887 Continued-"Residence" of Foreign Corporation. 310. Sufficiency of Service.

311. Voluntary Appearance.

312. Validity of Service not a Federal Question.

§ 304. Defendant Company "Found" only Within the District of the State of its Creation.-Under the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that no civil suit shall be brought in a Federal court against an inhabitant of the United States, by original process, "in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant," or "in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ," the question arose as to whether a foreign corporation, which, under the law of the State, was liable to suit in the State court within the district, could be considered as being "found" within the district, in such a sense as to give the Federal court jurisdiction of a suit

11 U. S. Stat. 79, § 11, substantially re-enacted in the Act of 1875, 18 U. S. Stat. 470; U. S. Rev. Stat., § 739.

against it. For a time there was conflict among the decisions of the Federal courts on this subject. One class of cases, going upon the theory that a corporation, being the creature of local law, dwells only within the territorial boundaries of the sovereign which creates it, and could not be an inhabitant of another State, and also that a State statute could not be effective to give jurisdiction to a Federal court, held that a corporation could not be served with process outside of the State where it was created.' The principle of these decisions is in entire harmony with the early doctrine of the Federal courts as to the citizenship of corporations, discussed in the preceding sections, and like that doctrine it gave way in favor of a more extended jurisdiction.

§ 305. Another View-"Found" Wherever Present by its Agents "Doing Business."-The other class of cases are more liberal in favor of the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the leading case of Ex parte Schollenberger,' settled the controversy by adopting the view that the act of Congress, prescribing the place where a person may be sued, is not one affecting the general jurisdiction of the courts, but is rather in the nature of a personal exemption which he may waive; that the citizenship of the parties being sufficient, a defendant may consent to be sued anywhere he pleases, and that a foreign corporation having consented in pursuance of State legislation, and as a

1 Hume v. Pittsburg, etc. R. Co., 8 Biss. 31; Day v. Newark IndiaRubber Mfg. Co., 1 Blatchf. 628; Pomeroy v. New York, etc. R. Co., 4 Blatchf. 120; Stillwell v. Empire Fire Ins. Co., 4 Cent. L. J. 463; Dallmeyer v. Farmers', etc. Ins. Co., 4 Cent. L. J. 464; Myers v. Dorr, 13 Blatchf. 22.

296 U. S. 369.

condition of doing business in the State, to be "found" within its territory, the fact that it is found there gives jurisdiction, notwithstanding the finding was procured by consent. The doctrine has been extended to those cases in which the foreign corporation is liable to service of process, because it does business within the State under the general rule of comity, although there may be no statute applicable to it, which makes liability to service of process a condition upon which it may come into the jurisdiction.'

§ 306. Effect of Service.-State Practice Followed. Where the jurisdiction as acquired by the State courts, by service on the agent of the foreign corporation under the statute, is limited in its character, and according to the decisions of the State courts, will not authorize a judgment in personam, the Federal courts will follow the doctrine of the State courts and take only a similar limited jurisdiction." In another district however, it was held that if the foreign corporation has agreed to be "found" in the jurisdiction, by appointing an agent for the service of process, complete jurisdiction would be

1 See to the same effect, Knott v. Southern L. Ins. Co., 2 Woods, 479; Merchants' Mfg. Co. v. Grand Trunk Railway Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 358, 63 How. Pr. 459; Blackburn v. Selma, etc. R. Co., 2 Flip. 525; Williams v. Empire Transf. Co., 14 Off. Gaz. 523; Brownell v. Troy, etc. R. Co., 3 Fed. Rep. 761, 10 Rep. 621; Runkle v. Lamar Ins. Co., 2 Fed. Rep. 9; Eaton v. St. Louis, etc. M. & S. Co., 7 Fed. Rep. 139; Hayden v. Androscoggin Mills, 1 Fed. Rep. 93; New England Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Woodworth, 111 U. S. 138, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 364; Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65; Gray v. Quicksilver M. Co., 21 Fed. Rep. 288, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 161; Mohr, etc. Distilling Co. v. Insurance Cos., 12 Fed. Rep. 474; Hat-sweat Mfg. Co. v. Davis S. M. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 294. Compare Maxwell v. Atchison, etc. R. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 286. 2 Wilson Packing Co. v. Hunter, 8 Biss. 429, 7 Rep. 455. Boston Electric Co. v. Electric Gas L. Co., 23 Fed. Rep. 838. 3 Eaton v. St. Louis, etc. M. & S. Co., 7 Fed. Rep. 139.

Contra:

acquired by the United States court by the service of process on such agent, although the suit may be upon a cause of action of which the State courts, under a State law restricting their jurisdiction in suits against foreign corporations, could not take cognizance.' This would seem to be the better rule and more in accord with the principles underlying the respective jurisdictions of the Federal and State courts. The Federal courts take jurisdiction because the foreign company has consented to be "found" within the district. The jurisdiction is not conferred upon them by the State statute, and should not be measured or limited by its terms. Their jurisdiction is conferred and limited by the Federal statutes, and having acquired jurisdiction of the person (so to speak) of the foreign corporation by such consent to be "found" in the district, they will proceed in accordance with the law which established them. The fact that the consent of the foreign company was given in pursuance of the State statute is immaterial. A statute limiting the jurisdiction of the State courts cannot be said to be a "matter of practice," to be followed in accordance with the provision of the Revised Statute.'

307. Facts Sufficient to Establish the Jurisdiction. Whether or not the extent to which the foreign company has done business in the State is sufficient to sustain the jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against it, on the theory that it is found there, is a question for the Federal court.' Where a Kansas manufacturing company, having

1 Carstairs v. Mechanics', etc. Ins. Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 823.

2 U. S. Rev. Stat. § 914.

St. Louis Wire Mill Co. v. Consolidated Barb Wire Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 802.

« EelmineJätka »