« AnteriorContinuar »
8 8022. State Statutes Providing This Mode of Service Applicable in Federal Courts. The courts of the United States are courts of the particular States within which they sit, within the meaning of statutes compelling foreign corporations to appoint attorneys within the domestic States to receive ser. vice of process, and prescribing the effect of such service. Thus, where a foreign insurance company was doing business in Pennsylvania under a license granted pursuant to a statute of that State, which, among other things, provided that the company should file a written stipulation agreeing that process issued in any suit brought in any court in that Commonwealth having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and served upon the agent specified by the company to receive service of process for it, should have the same effect as if personally served upon the company within the State, - it was held that the Circuit Court of the United States, sitting within the State of Pennsyl. vania, was a court of the Commonwealth within the meaning of the statute, and that process in an action commenced in such court, served upon the agent of a foreign corporation in compliance with the statute, gave the court jurisdiction such as required it to proceed to hear and determine the case. But
eign corporation shall be liable to be
369. This salutary decision overruled the decisions of several of the Federal Circuit Courts whose judges had declined to take jurisdiction under such circumstances. Mr. Justice Nelson had so declined in two cases: Day v. Newark India Rubber Man. Co., 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 628; Pomeroy v. New York &c. R. Co., 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 120. These decisions were rendered prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. (U.S.) 65, and are regarded as being in conflict with that decision. Mr. Circuit Judge Dillon, of the Eighth Circuit, declined to take jurisdiction in such a case only because he felt his judgment foreclosed by the rulings of other Federal judges, and especially by
in respect of a service of process upon foreign corporations in the Federal courts, the statutes of the State governing the mode of service have a partial application only. Outside of those statutes the Federal courts must have a jurisdiction of the action founded upon diverse citizenship and “inhabitancy”; and they must have this jurisdiction under the Constitution and statutes of the United States; for it is not competent for the legislature of a State to confer it upon them. For instance, where the corporation was not " found” within the State within the meaning of the Federal statute,' there was no jurisdiction in the Federal court, although the process had been served in a manner which would have satisfied the State statute, as construed by the highest court of the State;? and where in such a case the action was commenced in the State court, and afterwards removed to the Federal court, it was there dismissed for want of jurisdiction. But where the Federal court might, under the Federal Constitution and applicatory Federal statutes, acquire a jurisdiction, then, under the Federal Process Act of 1872, assimilating the mode of serving process in the Federal courts with that obtaining in the courts of the particular State, that jurisdiction might be acquired in a given case by a service of process in the mode prescribed by the statute law of the State. Thus, where a corporation, created under the laws of another State, had appointed an agent in Louisiana, and empowered him to receive service of process in actions brought against it there, process served upon him there was good in an action at law in a court of the United States, and was equally good in a suit in admiralty." It has been pointed out that by the Federal Process Act, the
those of Mr. Justice Nelson above Rev. Stat. U. S., 739. referred to: Stillwell v. Empire &c. • Good Hope Co. v. Railway Bark Ins. Co., 4 Cent. L. J.. 463. But Mr. Fencing Co., 22 Fed. Rep. 635. See Circuit Judge Woods decided in favor ante, 88 7748, et seq., 7462, et seg., and of the jurisdiction in Knott v. South- 7484, et seq., where this subject is conern Life Ins. Co., 2 Woods (U. S.), sidered in another relation. 479. See also Hayden v. Androscoggin • Bentlif v. London &c. Finance Mills, 1 Fed. Rep. 93; United States Corp., 44 Fed. Rep. 667. v. American Bell Teleph. Co., 29 Fed. • Re Louisville Underwriters, 134 Rep. 17.
U. S. 488; 8. c. 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 587. • Rey. Stat. U. S., § 914.
State practice is not necessarily to be adopted in all cases, but only as near as may be”; and it is said that this means so far as is compatible with the due administration of justice in the Federal tribunals. And it is added that the subordinate provisions in those statutes which would unwisely incumber the administration of law in the Federal tribunals, or tend to defeat the ends of justice therein, should be rejected.
8 8023. Conditions of Federal Jurisdiction in Actions against Non-resident Corporations. This subject was specially considered in a very important case in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio, before Jackson, Welker, and Sage, JJ.; and Mr. Circuit Judge Jackson’ wrote an elaborate opinion, in which he reached this conclusion: “We think the decisions of the Supreme Court have settled and established the proposition that, in the ab. sence of a voluntary appearance, three conditions must concur or co-exist in order to give the Federal courts jurisdiction in personam over a corporation created without the territorial limits of the State in which the court is held, namely: (1) It must appear, as a matter of fact, that the corporation is carrying on its business in such foreign State or district; (2) that such business is transacted or managed by some agent or officer appointed by and representing the corporation in such State; and (3) the existence of some local law making such corporation, or foreign corporations generally, amenable to suit there as a condition, express or implied, of doing business in the State." :
1 Hat-Sweat Man. Co. v. Davis that State (N. Y. Code Oiv. Proc., Sewing Machine Co., 31 Fed. Rep. $ 432), was a service upon the corpo294, 296. See, to the same general ration “ found within the district," effect, Indianapolis &c. R. Co. v. Horst, within the meaning of Rev. Stat. 93 U. S. 291, 299; and Nudd u. Bur- U.S., $ 732. Hat-Sweat Man. Co. 0. rows, 91 U. S. 426, 441. Recognizing Davis Sewing Machine Co., 31 Fed. this principle, a Federal court in New Rep. 294. See ante, $ 7484, et seq. York held that service upon a foreign
: Since a Justice of the Supreme corporation made upon its managing Court of the United States. agent within the domestic State, such : United States v. American Bell as would have satisfied the statute of Teleph. Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 17, 34.
88024. Validity of Statutes Providing for Service of Process upon Any Officer or Agent, Some of the State courts uphold the validity of statutes providing for the service of process against foreign corporations upon cer or agent of such corporation," found within the domestic jurisdiction,' — the courts proceeding upon the just principle that an officer or agent of a foreign corporation who is a good enough agent to make and take contracts for it within the domestic State, is a good enough agent to impart notice to it of an action to enforce those contracts."
8 8025. Where Foreign Corporation has Appointed an Agent to Receive Service under the Local Statute. - Statutes relating to service of process on corporations, being in general exclusive,' if the law of the domestic State requires the foreign corporation, as the condition of doing business in the State, to appoint an agent within the domestic State and empower him to receive service of process in actions against it, and lodge evidence of such appointment with the Secretary or other officer of the State, then, unless the statute is in its language permissive, so as to admit of other modes of service, service must be had upon that officer alone, or there will be
It is a
Ante, $ 7519.
damental quality in a corporation, * See, for example, City Fire Ins. that process against it shall be served Co. v. Carrugi, 41 Ga. 660, where the upon its principal officer. court, speaking through McCay, J., mere matter of municipal law that said: “The only difficulty in the way the State may change at pleasure. is a practical one. By the common We grant to these foreign corporalaw, process against a corporation tions the right to do business here. must be served upon its president or We permit them to open offices here. principal officer (Angell & Ames Corp., We protect them in the property they $ 404), and it is doubted if he can hold here. We open our courts to carry his functions as principal officer them for the enforcement of the with him, by a mere accidental visit claims they have upon our citizens. to another jurisdiction. If a com- Is it hard, or a violation of principle, pany were to locate an office in an. that they should be put upon the other State, and its principal officer same footing, as to actions against were to do business there, there could them, as our own corporations ?" be no question upon his liability to be Ibid. 670. served. Nor is it any inherent, fun- • Ante, $ 7503.
no jurisdiction of an action against the corporation;' and ser. vice in conformity with the general statutes relating to service of process on corporations will not give jurisdiction. So, where a foreign corporation has appointed a State officer as its attorney to receive service of process against it in compliance with the domestic statute, & service upon one who was its agent prior to such appointment will not support jurisdiction in the action. If the foreign corporation fails to make the designation required by the statute, but, nevertheless, by entering the State to do business there, renders itself amenable to its judicial process, then service may be obtained upon it in any mode recognized by any other statute, or by the principles of the common law. On the other hand, a service upon the agent so appointed is sufficient to sustain a personal
" Baile v. Equitable Fire Ins. Co., that but one agent or attorney shall 68 Mo. 617; Stone v. Travelers’ Ins. be designated by the foreign insurance Co., 78 Mo. 655.
company. Gates v. Tusten, 89 Mo. : Oland v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 13, 19. But where the sheriff re69 Md. 248; 8. c. 12 Cent. Rep. 881; 14 turned that he had served the sumAtl. Rep. 669; Rehm v. German Ing. mons on H. P., “State agent" of the Sav. Inst., 125 Ind. 135; 8. C. 25 company, it was held that the return N. E. Rep. 173. It follows that where showed a good service, since the words a foreign insurance company has ap- “State agent” sufficiently designated pointed such an agent, service of pro- H. P. as the person appointed by the cess upon one of its local agents will company to receive service of process not be sufficient: Baile v. Equitable under the above statute. Stone u. Fire Ins. Co., 68 Mo. 617; Gates v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 78 Mo. 655. Tusten, 89 Mo. 13; Rehm v. German • Laffilin v. Travelers' Ing. Co., 121 Ins. Sav. Inst., 125 Ind. 135; 8. c. 25 N. Y. 713; 8. c. 31 N. Y. St. Rep. 900; N. E. Rep. 173. So a return of ser- 24 N. E. Rep. 934. On the contrary, vice of process of garnishment "by where the company made such an delivering a summons of garnishment appointment, but the Superintendent in writing to H. N. B., one of the of Insurance refused to admit it to do agents of said company,” - does not business in the State, after which its show a formal service under the Mis- application was withdrawn, a service souri statute (R. S. Mo. 1879, $ 6013), of summons on the Superintendent of which requires foreign insurance com- Insurance was inoperative to give jupanies doing business within Missouri risdiction against the company. Richto appoint and authorize"
ardson v. Western Home Ins. Co., 8 son who shall be a resident of the N. Y. Supp. 873. State to acknowledge or receive ser- Compare Morrison 6. National vice of process," etc. The reason is Rubber Co., 13 Civ. Proc. Rep. (N. that the statute plainly contemplates Y.) 233,