process is enough.135 But special appearance to object to the jurisdiction does not bind the defendant; 136 even though the defendant has had the cause removed to the Federal court.137 If the corporation appears, the court has jurisdiction to order discovery and an accounting though its office, books, and assets are outside the State.138 The corporation is bound if it appears generally though it did so unintentionally through mistake. 139

The distinction between appearance in the suit and acceptance of service of process must be noted. Appearance is made by the authorized attorney of the corporation. Acceptance of service is merely a waiver of the formalities of service of process, and such formalities, it would seem, can be waived only by an agent authorized to receive service. If, therefore, an attorney (not being an agent on whom process may be served) "accepts service" his act is either altogether null or else it amounts to an appearance for the corporation; and in such case, therefore, the corporation cannot be defaulted for non-appearance. 140

§ 283. Jurisdiction in rem.

Though a State has no power over a foreign corporation, it nevertheless has complete jurisdiction over the property of the corporation within its borders. Irrespective, therefore, of whether the corporation has done business within the State or has consented to be sued in its courts, the courts of the

185 Alliance Assur. Co. v. Bartlett, 9 New Mex. 554, 58 Pac. 351; Dittenhoefer v. Coeur d'Alene Cloth. Co., 4 Wash. 519, 30 Pac. 660.

136 Elgin Canning Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 24 Fed. 866; Farmer v. Nat. Life Ass., 50 Fed. 829; De Castro v. Compagnie Francaise, 76 Fed. 425; Bank v. Burch, 76 Mich. 608, 43 N. W. 453. But see contra, St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. v. Whitley, 77 Tex. 126, 13 S. W. 853; Mexican Cen. Ry. Co. v. Charman (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 958.

137 Farmer v. Nat. Life Ass., 50 Fed. 829.

138 Clark v. Equitable L. A. Soc., 76 Miss. 22, 23 So. 453.

139 People v. American L. & T. Co., 62 Hun, 622, 17 N. Y. S. 76.

140 Northern Cent. Ry. v. Rider, 45 Md. 24; but see Wilson v. MartinWilson A. F. A. Co., 149 Mass. 24, 20 N. E. 318.

State may proceed in rem against any tangible property situated in the State. 141 Thus, one may enforce a mechanic's lien upon property within the State, though it belong to a foreign corporation which has never done business there; 142 or remove a cloud on the title of land, the cloud consisting of a claim by a foreign corporation.143

The question whether there is property of the corporation within the State is sometimes a difficult one. If the property is tangible, whether it is real or personal, the State in which it is actually situated has jurisdiction over it. If the corporation has been defrauded of tangible property which the defrauding party holds within the State, it may be reached by one who has a right to do so (for instance, a minority stockholder) though the foreign corporation cannot be served; it is property of the corporation within the State for this purpose. 144 But incorporeal rights cannot ordinarily be reached in that way.145 How far a debt may be reached. by process of garnishment will be discussed later.

On this ground are to be justified suits against a foreign corporation which has not done business within the State, begun by attachment of property of the corporation within the State, the corporation being served by publication. 146 Statutes commonly permit such suits.147 The jurisdiction is quasi in rem, and the judgment is valid so far as it affects the disposition of the property under attachment and no further. 148

141 Peo. Nat. Bank of Shelbyville v. Cleveland, 117 Ga. 908, 44 S. E. 20; Hodgson v. So. Bldg. & Loan Ass., 91 Md. 439, 46 Atl. 971; Strom v. Mont. Cent. Ry. Co., 81 Minn. 346, 84 N. W. 46; Miller v. Jones, 67 Hun, 281, 22 N. Y. 886; Chitty v. Pa. Ry., 62 S. C. 526, 40 S. E. 944.

142 Dahlonega G. M. Co. v. Purdy, 65 Ga. 496.

143 American B. & L. Assoc. v. Matthews, (Tex. Civ. App.) 35 S. W. 690. 144 Kidd v. New Hampshire Traction Co. (N. H.), 56 Atl. 465; Miller v. Jones, 67 Hun, 281, 22 N. Y. S. 86.

145 Non-Magnetic Watch Co. v. Association Horlogere, 44 Fed. 6.

146 Wilson v. Danforth, 47 Ga. 676.

147 See these statutes collected in each State in Chapter VII.

148 Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. ed. 565.

§ 284. Jurisdiction for garnishment.

A foreign corporation doing business in the State may be summoned as garnishee, whether the principal defendant is resident or non-resident, by service of process such as would give jurisdiction over it if it were the principal defendant.149 But if the corporation which it is attempted to make garnishee is not doing business in the State it cannot be held as such, and service upon it will not bring a non-resident principal defendant within the jurisdiction of the court even to the extent of the claim attempted to be reached. 150 If a corporation is improperly served it cannot be held as garnishee even if it submits to the jurisdiction by a general appearance, since it is not in the power of the debtor to bring within the jurisdiction of the court a debt not otherwise within it.151

In order to have jurisdiction over the debt garnisheed, it would seem on principle that the court should have power to discharge the debt. This power could come from the fact that the debt is payable within the State, since the State in which a debt is payable has control over the time and manner of payment. It could also come from having power over the creditor, since it could then compel the creditor to release the claim. But on principle a garnishment should be valid, in a case where a non-resident principal debtor is not per

149 Rainey v. Maas, 51 Fed. 580; Selma R. & D. R. R. v. Tyson, 48 Ga. 351; Cathcart v. Cincinnati, H. & D. Ry., 108 Ga. 253, 33 S. E. 875; Hannibal & S. J. R. R. v. Crane, 102 Ill. 249, 40 A. R. 581; Greaves v. Posner, 111 Ia. 651, 82 N. W. 1022; National Bank of Commerce v. Huntington, 129 Mass. 444; Shafer Iron Co. v. Iron Circuit Judge, 88 Mich. 464, 50 N. W. 389; McAllister v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co., 28 Mo. 214; India Rubber Co. v. Katz, 65 App. Div. 349, 72 N. Y. S. 658; Pennsylvania R. R. v. Peoples, 31 Oh. S. 537; Kennedy v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 165 Pa. 179, 30 Atl. 724; Moshassuck Felt Mill v. Blanding, 17 R. I. 297, 21 Atl. 538; Weed S. M. Co. v. Bontelle, 56 Vt. 570; Dittenhoefer v. Cœur d'Alene Clothing Co., 4 Wash. 519, 30 Pac. 660; Brauser v. New England F. Ins. Co., 21 Wis. 506. Contra, Brisco v. Minah C. M. Co., 82 Fed. 952.

150 Associated Press v. United Press, 104 Ga. 51, 29 S. E. 869; Sheehan v. Frederick, 2 York Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 10.

151 Louisville & N. R. R. v. Steiner, 128 Ala. 353, 30 So. 741; Cromwell v. Royal C. I Co., 49 Md. 366, 33 A. R. 258; Gates v. Tusten, 89 Mo. 13.

sonally served, only if it was payable within the jurisdiction. A claim payable within the State can always be garnisheed by service on the garnishee.152 In a few cases it has been held. in accordance with what has just been said to be the correct principle, that a claim of a non-resident creditor not served personally cannot otherwise be reached. 153 But the prevailing and well-established view now is, that if the garnishee can be legally served the claim may be validly garnisheed,154 even if it is a foreign judgment in favor of a non-resident.155

§ 285. Who may sue a foreign corporation.

At common law, since the courts of a State are open to all persons, 156 a foreign corporation might be sued by an alien as well as by a citizen. 157 But several States, following New York, have limited the right to sue foreign corporations to citizens, unless the cause of action arose in the State, in which case aliens may sue; 158 and a foreign corporation, being an

152 Fontana v. Chronicle Tel. Co., 83 Fed. 824; Debs v. Dalton, 7 Ind. App. 84, 34 N. E. 236 (semble); India Rubber Co. v. Katz, 65 App. Div. 349, 72 N. Y. S. 658.

153 Reimers v. Seatco M. Co., 70 Fed. 573, 30 L. R. A. 364; Louisville & N. R. R. v. Steiner, 128 Ala. 353, 30 So. 741; Wheat v. Platte City & F. D. R. R., 4 Kan. 370; Wright v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R., 19 Neb. 175, 27 N. W. 90, 56 A. R. 747; Willet v. Equitable Ins. Co., 10 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 193.

154 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. v. Sturm, 174 U. S. 710, 43 L. ed. 1144; Hannibal & S. J. R. R. v. Crane, 102 Ill. 249, 40 A. R. 581; Mooney v. Union Pac. R. R., 60 Ia. 346; Burlington & M. R. R. R. v. Thompson, 31 Kan. 180, 47 A. R. 497; Neufelder v. German-American Ins. Co., 6 Wash. 336, 33 Pac. 870, 36 A. S. R. 166, 22 L. R. A. 287.

155 Fithian v. New York & E. R. R., 31 Pa. 114; Jones v. New York & E. R. R., 1 Grant (Pa.), 457; but see Opdyke v. Murphy Iron Works, 10 Pa. Dist. R. 68.

156 Ante, § 242; for the exceptional doctrine closing them to aliens in certain cases, see § 243.

157 Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 42 L. ed. 964; Youmans v. Minnesota T. I. & T. Co., 67 Fed. 282; Johnston v. Trade Ins. Co., 132 Mass. 432; Mutual L. I. Co. v. Nichols, (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S. W. 910; Western U. T. Co. v. Shaw, (Tex. Civ. App.) 77 S. W. 433.

158 Cromwell v. Royal C. I. Co., 49 Md. 366, 33 A. R. 258; Emerson T. & Co. v. McCormick H. M. Co., 51 Mich. 5, 16 N. W. 182; Railway Co. v. Hosmer, 106 Mich. 248, 64 N. W. 17; Palmer v. Phoenix M. L. I. Co., 84 N.

alien though doing business in the State, can sue another only on the same condition.159 If the cause of action arose within the State, a foreign individual or corporation may sue a foreign corporation. 160

A non-resident administrator of a deceased person is an alien, 161 and conversely a resident executor of a non-resident testator may sue, 162

A cause of action in contract arises within the State not because the contract is made within the State, but when it is performable in the State and is therefore broken there. 163

The statute limits the jurisdiction of the courts, and it is therefore impossible to maintain the action, though the defendant corporation appears and consents to the suit.164

Y. 63; Robinson v. Oceanic S. N. Co., 112 N. Y. 315, 19 N. E. 625; Smith v. Union Milk Co., 70 Hun, 348, 24 N. Y. S. 79; Weston v. Boston W. C. Co., 75 Hun, 115, 26 N. Y. S. 1101; Robeson v. Central R. R., 76 Hun, 444, 28 N. Y. S. 104; Selser Bros. Co. v. Potter Produce Co., 80 Hun, 554, 30 N. Y. S. 294; Ladenburg v. Commercial Bank, 87 Hun, 269, 33 N. Y. S. 821; O'Brien v. Peoria Water Co., 5 App. Div. 229, 39 N. Y. S. 121; Delaware, L. & W. R. R. v. New York, S. & W. R. R., 12 Misc. 230, 33 N. Y. S. 1081; Progressive Power Co. v. Wrought I. B. Co., 14 Misc. 23, 35 N. Y. S. 130; Monda v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 20 Misc. 685, 21 Misc. 308, 46 N. Y. S. 682, 47 N. Y. S. 182; Bryan v. Western U. T. Co., 133 N. C. 603, 45 S. E. 938; Central R. R. & B. Co. v. Georgia C. & I. Co., 32 S. C. 319, 11 S. E. 192; Sawyer v. North A. L. I. Co., 46 Vt. 697. The statutes are collected in Chapter VII. See also § 243.

159 Emerson T. & Co. v. McCormick H. M. Co., supra; Central R. R. & B. Co. v. Georgia, C. & I. Co., supra.

160 Emerison T. & Co. v. McCormick H. M. Co., supra; Strawn v. Brandt Dent Co., 71 App. Div. 234, 75 N. Y. S. 698; Munger V. T. Co. v. Rubber G. M. Co., 81 N. Y. S. 302; Bryan v. Western U. T. Co., supra; Osborne v. Shawmut Ins. Co., 51 Vt. 278.

161 Robinson v. Oceanic S. N. Co., 112 N. Y. 315, 19 N. E. 625.

162 Palmer v. Phoenix M. L. I. Co., 84 N. Y. 63.

163 Maxwell v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 34 Fed. 286; Hibernia Nat. Bank v. Lacombe, 84 N. Y. 367, 38 A. R. 518; but see Perry v. Erie Transfer Co., 4 Misc. 598, 23 N. Y. S. 878.

164 Robinson v. Oceanic S. N. Co., 112 N. Y. 315, 19 N. E. 625; Selser Bros. Co. v. Potter Produce Co., 80 Hun, 554, 30 N. Y. S. 294; but see Smith v. Union Milk Co., 70 Hun, 348, 24 N. Y. S. 79.