tion may be served. But it is essential to the validity of such service that the corporation shall be doing business within the State, and that the service be upon an agent representing the corporation with respect to such business. Goldie v. Morning News, 156 U. S. ubi sup.; Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Co., 190 U. S. ubi sup.

The conductors, one of whom was served, when he crossed the Texas line, this record shows, became the servant and agent of the Gulf Company. The ticket agent sold tickets for the Gulf Company, in whose employment he was. He would also sell tickets good upon its line, and over the lines of the Pacific Company, but he transacted this business as the agent of the Gulf Company. As to Hovey, the record fails to show that he was agent of the Pacific Company; on the contrary, it shows that he had no connection with the company, and that his duties were confined to the affairs of the Gulf Company. The same is true of Merrell; and as to Sebree, the record shows that for the services rendered as trainmaster he was paid by each company for the service performed for it and had no charge as agent of the business of the Pacific Company in the State of Texas.

We reach the conclusion that the Pacific Company was not doing business in the State of Texas and that the attempted service was not upon agents of that company transacting its business in that State in such a sense as to give jurisdiction by service of citation upon them. The judgment of the Circuit Court is

Affirmed.

Dissenting: The CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE MOODY.

205 U.S.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.

No. 199. Argued January 31, 1907.-Decided April 8, 1907.

Neither the fiction that personal property follows the domicil of the owner, nor the doctrine that credits evidenced by notes have the situs of the latter, can be allowed to obscure the truth; and personal property may be taxed at its permanent abiding place although the domicil of the owner is elsewhere.

Where a non-resident enters into the business of loaning money within a State and employs a local agent to conduct the business, the State may tax the capital employed precisely as it taxes the capital of its own citizens, in like situation, and may assess the credits arising out of the business, and the foreigner cannot escape taxation upon his capital by temporarily removing from the State the evidences of credits which, under such circumstances, have a taxable situs in the State of their origin. Loans made by a New York life insurance company on its own policies in Louisiana are taxable in that State although the notes may be temporarily sent to the home office.

115 Louisiana, 698, affirmed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Charles Pollard Cocke, with whom Mr. William Wirt Howe and Mr. Walker B. Spencer were on the brief, for plaintiff in error:

The property sought to be taxed was beyond the limits and jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana, and the statute of Louisiana of 1898, as construed and applied, deprives the plaintiff in error of its property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; Railroad Co. v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262; Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432, 440; Erie Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania, 153 U. S. 628-648; New Orleans v. Stempel, 175 U. S. 309, and Board of Assessors v. Comptoir National d'Escompte, 191 U. S. 389, distinguished.

The Supreme Court of Louisiana cannot be held to have

Argument for Defendants in Error.

205 U.S.

decided that any statute of Louisiana imposed on plaintiff in error, as a condition to doing business in the State, payment of taxes on property in its hands beyond the jurisdiction of the State. But, if the court did so decide, plaintiff in error may, nevertheless, assert in this court that the statute is unconstitutional.

In

The State cannot by statute validly exact from a foreign corporation, as a condition, either to entering the State, or as a condition to continuing to do business therein, an agreement or stipulation that it will not avail itself of the rights and privileges conferred on it by the Federal Constitution. surance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445; Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 335; Barrow v. Burnside, 121 U. S. 186; Southern Pacific Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202; Barrow Steamship Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100; Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239; Security Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 202 U. S. 257.

The utmost that the State can do is to provide that any foreign corporation which asserts a right or privilege under the Federal Constitution shall be deprived of its license to do business in the State. Its power, in other words, may be exerted to punish, but not to prevent, an appeal to constitutional immunity. Security Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, supra.

Mr. F. C. Zacharie, Mr. George H. Terriberry and Mr. H. Garland Dupre, with whom Mr. Samuel L. Gilmore was on the brief, for defendants in error:

The Supreme Court of Louisiana having decided that there was nothing in the constitution and laws of Louisiana, opposed to the taxing of these notes, this court will not go behind the decision of the highest court of the State upon this point. Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Powers, 201 U. S. 291.

In Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, and Washington County v. Bristol, 177 U. S. 133, this court affirmed the power of state taxation of notes which were given in the State and were payable in the State, although the notes were held

in New York until such time as it became necessary to collect or renew them. This was done by forwarding the notes back to the agent in the State which was the domicil of the debtor.

MR. JUSTICE MOODY delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which sustained a tax on the "credits, money loaned, bills receivable," etc., of the plaintiff in error, a life insurance company incorporated under the laws of New York, where it had its home office and principal place of business. It issued policies of life insurance in the State of Louisiana and, for the purpose of doing that and other business, had a resident agent, called a superintendent, whose duty it was to superintend the company's business generally in the State. The agent had a local office in New Orleans. The company was engaged in the business of lending money to the holders of its policies, which, when they had reached a certain point of maturity, were regarded as furnishing adequate security for loans. The money lending was conducted in the following manner: The policy holders desiring to obtain loans on their policies applied to the company's agent in New Orleans. If the agent thought a loan a desirable one he advised the company of the application by communicating with the home office in New York, and requested that the loan be granted. If the home office approved the loan the company forwarded to the agent a check for the amount, with a note to be signed by the borrower. The agent procured the note to be signed, attached the policy to it, and forwarded both note and policy to the home office in New York. He then delivered to the borrower the amount of the loan. When interest was due upon the notes it was paid to the agent and by him transmitted to the home office. It does not appear whether or not the notes were returned to New Orleans for the endorsement of the payments of interest. When the notes were paid it was to the agent, to whom they were sent

At all other times the

to be delivered back to the makers. notes and policies securing them were kept at the home office in New York. The disputed tax was not eo nomine on these notes, but was expressed to be on "credits, money loaned, bills receivable," etc., and its amount was ascertained by computing the sum of the face value of all the notes held by the company at the time of the assessment. The tax was assessed under a law, Act 170 of 1898, which provided for a levy of annual taxes on the assessed value of all property situated within the State of Louisiana, and in Section 7 provided as follows:

"That it is the duty of the tax assessors throughout the State to place upon the assessment list all property subject to taxation, including merchandise or stock in trade on hand at the date of listing within their respective districts or parishes. And provided further, In assessing mercantile firms the true intent and purpose of this act shall be held to mean the placing of such value upon stock in trade, all cash, whether borrowed or not, money at interest, open accounts, credits, &c., as will represent in their aggregate a fair average on the capital, both cash and credits, employed in the business of the party or parties to be assessed. And this shall apply with equal force to any person or persons representing in this State business interests that may claim domicile elsewhere, the intent and purpose being that no non-resident, either by himself or through any agent, shall transact business here without paying to the State a corresponding tax with that exacted of its own citizens; and all bills receivable, obligations or credits arising from the business done in this State are hereby declared as assessable within this State and at the business domicile of said nonresident, his agent or representative."

The evident purpose of this law is to lay the burden of taxation equally upon those who do business within the State. It requires that in the valuation for the purposes of taxation of the property of mercantile firms the stock, goods and credits shall be taken into account, to the end that the average