§ 8019. What Statutes Relating to Service of Process Include Foreign Corporations. Statutes providing, in the broadest terms, a mode of serving process upon any corporation, "or upon any unincorporated company," are properly construed as including foreign as well as domestic corporations.1 On the contrary, the statute of Michigan, in force as late as 1871, providing for service of process on various named corporations through their officers, has been held to apply only 1 Société Fonciere v. Milliken, 135 U. S. 304. This was the construction of a statute of Nebraska (Neb. Civ. Code, § 912) relating to service of process on corporations generally: Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Manning, 23 Neb. 552; s. c. 35 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. 618; 37 N. W. Rep. 462. So, the original provisions of the code of Tennessee (Thomp. & Steg. Stat. Tenn., 1871, §§ 2831-2834), providing for service of process on corporations generally, extend to foreign as well as to domestic corporations; and the later statute of that State, entitled "An Act to Subject Foreign Corporations to Suit in this State" (Tenn. Acts 1887, p. 386), was designed merely to provide for a service upon such corporations as engaged in business in the State without having an office and a resident agent therein. Telephone Co. v. Turner, 88 Tenn. 265. Followed in Kansas City &c. R. Co. v. Daughtry, 138 U. S. 298, 304. A statute of Illinois recited: "In all cases where suit has been or may hereafter be brought against any incorporated company, process shall be served upon the president of such company, if he reside in the county in which suit is brought, and if such president be absent from the county, or does not reside in the county, then the summons shall be served by the proper officer by leaving a copy thereof with any clerk, cashier, secretary, engineer, conductor, or any agent of such company found in the county, at least five days before the trial, if suit be brought before a justice of the peace, and at least ten days when suit is brought in the Circuit Court." Scates Ill. Stat. 243. It has been held that this statute extends to foreign corporations; so that the following return of service was good: "Executed the within writ by delivering a true copy of the same to J. R. Booth, agent, and J. W. Dexter, conductor, of said Mineral Point Railroad Company, this 2d day of February, 1857, the president of said company not residing in this State." The court said: "It is a convenient way provided to get service upon them, so as to subject their property to their contracts, and it is a proper consequence of the provisions of this act that they should be deemed found wherever one of their officers or agents, such as specified in the act, may happen to be." Mineral Point R. Co. v. Keep, 22 Ill. 9; s. c. 74 Am. Dec. 124; reaffirmed in Hannibal &c. R. Co. v. Crane, 102 Ill. 249, 254; s. c. 40 Am. Rep. 581,- where it was said that the one object of the statute was to embrace corporations having property in Illinois and their offices and places of business in other States. In Peoria Ins. Co. v. Warner, 28 Ill. 429, 433, it was said that the statute was remedial in its character, and ought to receive the most liberal interpretation. to domestic corporations, for the reason that it could not be made to apply to foreign corporations without the interpolation of various clauses and qualifications;' and accordingly statutes having special reference to service of process on foreign corporations were subsequently enacted in that State.2 These statutes failed to provide for the service of the writ of garnishment on foreign corporations, though there was such. a provision in respect of domestic corporations; consequently a foreign corporation was not subject to garnishment in that State,' until the legislature again supplied the casus omissus.5 § 8020. Service upon Corporations Created by the Concurrent Action of Two or More States. Where corporations are created by the concurrent action of two or more States, they are domestic corporations within each State, and a service of process upon such corporations, in the manner provided for service upon domestic corporations, will be good, and will give jurisdiction to proceed to judgment. 1 People v. Judge of Wayne Circuit, 24 Mich. 38. 'See Mich. Pub. Acts 1881, no. 256; Hebel v. Amazon Ins. Co., 33 Mich. 400; Lake Shore &c. R. Co. v. Hunt, 39 Mich. 469. In the Pennsylvania Common Pleas, service of a writ of foreign attachment on a domestic corporation, was stricken off by the court after the appearance; because the service, though made in compliance with the statute regulating service on foreign corporations, was not made in conformity with the statute respecting corporations. Silva v. Greenwald, 2 Pa. County Ct. 131. That service of process upon a domestic corporation must be upon an officer thereof, Pa. Act April 8, 1851 (P. L. 354), authorizing service upon its agent, having reference only to foreign corporations, on foreign corporations, under Ohio How. Stat. Mich., § 886. Mich. Laws 1889, no. 266. Re St. Paul &c. R. Co., 36 Minn. 85; 8. c. 30 N. W. Rep. 432. See, in affirmation of this principle, ante, a domestic corporation. The same railroad had extended a branch of its line into the District of Columbia under the authority of Congress, and it was consequently held liable to an action in that District for an injury done to the plaintiff while traveling on its cars in the State of Virginia. 1 Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Gallahue, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 655; s. c. 65 Am. Dec. 254. 'Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 6388 (U. 8.) 65. Compare Goshorn .. Supervisors, 1 W. Va. 308; and Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Supervisors, 3 W. Va. 319. CHAPTER CXCVIII. SERVICE OF PROCESS ON FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. SECTION 8022. State statutes providing this 8023. Conditions of Federal jurisdiction in actions against nonresident corporations. SECTION 8032. Not necessary that agent should reside continuously within the State. 8033. Agent must be representing 8035. Service upon a director. 8037. Service upon "managing 8024. Validity of statutes providing 8038. Service upon any agent by for service of process upon 8025. Where foreign corporation has appointed an agent to receive 8026. Proof of appointment of such 8027. Where it has appointed a State officer as such agent. 8028. Judgments against foreign corporations founded on process served upon agents appointed under statutes to receive service of process, good everywhere. 8029. Service on agent with whom the contract was made. 8030. Service upon officer or agent casually within the State. 8031. Doctrine not applicable to agents appointed to do business for the the corporation within the State. whom the corporation does its business in the domestic State. 8039. Service upon any person doing 8041. Service upon stockholders. 8047. Service upon the agent who is 8048. Evidence of service of process. 8049. Construction of particular statutes relating to service of process on foreign corporations. 8050. Notice by publication in lieu of personal service. § 8019. What Statutes Relating to Service of Process Include Foreign Corporations. Statutes providing, in the broadest terms, a mode of serving process upon any corporation, "or upon any unincorporated company," are properly construed as including foreign as well as domestic corporations.1 On the contrary, the statute of Michigan, in force as late as 1871, providing for service of process on various named corporations through their officers, has been held to apply only 1 Société Fonciere v. Milliken, 135 U. S. 304. This was the construction of a statute of Nebraska (Neb. Civ. Code, § 912) relating to service of process on corporations generally: Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Manning, 23 Neb. 552; 8. c. 35 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. 618; 37 N. W. Rep. 462. So, the original provisions of the code of Tennessee (Thomp. & Steg. Stat. Tenn., 1871, §§ 2831-2834), providing for service of process on corporations generally, extend to foreign as well as to domestic corporations; and the later statute of that State, entitled "An Act to Subject Foreign Corporations to Suit in this State" (Tenn. Acts 1887, p. 386), was designed merely to provide for a service upon such corporations as engaged in business in the State without having an office and a resident agent therein. Telephone Co. v. Turner, 88 Tenn. 265. Followed in Kansas City &c. R. Co. v. Daughtry, 138 U. S. 298, 304. A statute of Illinois recited: "In all cases where suit has been or may hereafter be brought against any incorporated company, process shall be served upon the president of such company, if he reside in the county in which suit is brought, and if such president be absent from the county, or does not reside in the county, then the summons shall be served by the proper officer by leaving a copy thereof with any clerk, cashier, secretary, engineer, conductor, or any agent of such company found in the county, at least five days before the trial, if suit be brought before a justice of the peace, and at least ten days when suit is brought in the Circuit Court." Scates Ill. Stat. 243. It has been held that this statute extends to foreign corporations; so that the following return of service was good: "Executed the within writ by delivering a true copy of the same to J. R. Booth, agent, and J. W. Dexter, conductor, of said Mineral Point Railroad Company, this 2d day of February, 1857, the president of said company not residing in this State." The court said: "It is a convenient way provided to get service upon them, so as to subject their property to their contracts, and it is a proper consequence of the provisions of this act that they should be deemed found wherever one of their officers or agents, such as specified in the act, may happen to be." Mineral Point R. Co. v. Keep, 22 Ill. 9; s. c. 74 Am. Dec. 124; reaffirmed in Hannibal &c. R. Co. v. Crane, 102 Ill. 249, 254; s. c. 40 Am. Rep. 581,-where it was said that the one object of the statute was to embrace corporations having property in Illinois and their offices and places of business in other States. In Peoria Ins. Co. v. Warner, 28 Ill. 429, 433, it was said that the statute was remedial in its character, and ought to receive the most liberal interpretation. |