Boyer v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 November 1901
• Parties: BOYER v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

66 P. 826

8 Idaho 74

BOYER v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 25, 1901

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Foreign corporations are, for the purposes of jurisdiction nonresidents of the state, and may be sued in the district court in any county in the state designated in plaintiff's complaint.

2. A foreign corporation doing business in this state does not acquire a fixed residence in this state by designating an agent upon whom process may be served, as required by the provisions of section 2653, Rev. St.; and the decision in the case of Easley v. Insurance Co. (Idaho) 38 P. 405 announcing a different rule, expressly overruled.

APPEAL from District Court, Kootenai County.

Affirmed, with costs to the respondents.

H. M Stephens, John M. Bunn and E. T. White, for Appellant.

Foreign corporations complying with the provisions of section 2653 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho have all the rights and privileges of like domestic corporations, and are subject to the laws of this state applicable to like domestic corporations. (Idaho Rev. Stats., sec. 2653; Easley v. New Zealand, Ins. Co., 4 Idaho 205, 38 P. 405; Webster v. Oregon Short-Line R. Co., 6 Idaho 312, 55 P. 661.) One of the rights of a domestic corporation, under the statutes of Idaho is to sue and be sued in any court as a natural person may. (Idaho Rev. Stats., sec. 2633, subd. 2.) "A corporation cannot change its residence or its citizenship. It can have its legal home only at the place where it is located by or under the authority of its charter; but it may by its agents transact business anywhere, unless prohibited by its charter, or prohibited by local laws." (Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U.S. 369; Thorn v. Railroad Co., 26 N.J.L. 121; Connecticut R. R. Co. v, Cooper, 30 Vt. 476, 73 Am. Dec. 319.)

Charles L. Heitman, for Respondents.

It is a matter of general history of which the court will take judicial notice, that the main line of the defendant traverses Kootenai county, and that its immense land grant derived from the national government, and extending for fifty miles on each side of its main line in Kootenai county, is situated in the county of Kootenai, and yet this defendant is not a resident of Kootenai county so to enable residents of Kootenai county to bring actions against the defendant and have these actions tried in the county where are its immense properties, its railroad tracks, its station-houses, its rolling stock, and where, as the record discloses, it exercises its franchises in the state of Idaho and it exercises these franchises in no other county in Idaho. Respondents contend that to sustain the motion of the defendant in this case and upon this record would be doing great injustice to the respondents. The supreme court of the United States has declared in a number of cases that corporations are conclusively presumed to be residents of the states in which they are created. (Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U.S. 5; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U.S. 369; Railroad Co. v. Leston, 2 How. 558;Locomotive Engine etc. Co. v. Erie Ry. Co., 10 Blatchf. 307, F. Cas. No. 8452; United States v. Railroad Co., 49 F. 297;Zambrino v. Railway Co., 38 F. 449; United States v. Southern Pacific Ry. Co., 49 F. 302; Davis v. Banking Co., 17 Ga. 336; 6 Thompson on Corporations, sec. 7426.)

QUARLES, C. J. Sullivan and Stockslager, JJ., concur.

OPINION

QUARLES, C. J.

The respondent commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him while a passenger on a train of cars operated by the appellant, in the district court of the first judicial district, in and for Kootenai county. To the complaint the defendant filed its answer, an affidavit of merits, and demand for a change of venue to the district court of the second judicial district, in and for Nez Perces county, on the ground that the defendant, a foreign corporation, has its principal place of business and its regularly designated agent in the latter county, and for that reason is entitled to the change of venue demanded. This motion was denied, and from the order of the court denying the motion for the change of venue, appellant appeals.

It sufficiently appears that the appellant is a foreign corporation, and that it has duly, by writing, filed and recorded as required by law, designated an agent resident at Lewiston, in Nez Perces county, upon whom legal process shall be served by and on behalf of the said appellant, and that said latter place is its principal place of business in this state. Appellant contends that under the statutes and the decisions of this court in Easley v. Insurance Co., 4 Idaho 205, 38 P. 405, and Webster v. Railroad Co., 6 Idaho 312, 55 P. 661, and other authorities cited, it was error to deny the said motion. If the rule announced in Easley v. Insurance Co. applies to railroad corporations, under our statutes, and that decision is followed, the contention of appellant must be sustained. This precise question did not arise in either of the cases named. In the former case the question related to insurance companies, and while the language used in the decision is broad, and would appear to apply generally to all foreign corporations, yet the precise question here was not considered in that case; and, while the language used in the latter case would seem to carry the idea that the rule announced in Easley v. Insurance Co. applies to railroad corporations, yet what was there said was obiter dicta, and neither of said decisions is conclusive of the question here presented. This is the first time that this precise question has been before this court, and, owing to its importance not only to the people of this state, but to railroad companies whose lines run into this state, we have given this question extended and careful consideration.

The statute authorizing or requiring foreign corporations to designate an agent upon whom service of process may be served (Rev. Stats., sec. 2653) was not intended to apply to railroad corporations. That statute prescribes a general rule, and was enacted for the benefit and convenience of the citizens of this state. That the rule should not apply to railroad corporations is apparent from the fact that the legislature has prescribed that summons may be served upon any ticket or station agent, thus showing that summons need not be necessarily served upon the designated agent. As a matter of fact, section 2653 of the Revised Statutes does not prescribe upon what agent of a foreign corporation service shall be made. The object of that statute was to make it possible for all citizens of this state to obtain actual service upon foreign corporations doing business in this state, whether such foreign corporations have one or more regular places of business or not. The persons or agents upon whom service may be made in actions against foreign corporations are named in section 4144 of the Revised Statutes as amended by act of March 3, 1897 (Acts 1897, p 13), and re-enacted February 16, 1899 (Acts 1899, p. 293). The second subdivision of said section as amended is as follows: "If the suit is against a foreign corporation, or a nonresident joint stock company or association doing business and having a managing or business...