Good Hope Co. v. Railway Barb-Fencing Co.

• Decision Date: 30 December 1884
• Citation: 22 F. 635
• Parties: GOOD HOPE CO. v. RAILWAY BARB FENCING CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

22 F. 635

GOOD HOPE CO. v. RAILWAY BARB FENCING CO.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

December 30, 1884

Martin & Smith, for plaintiff.

MacFarland Reynolds & Harrison, for defendant.

WALLACE J.

The question raised by this motion is whether jurisdiction is acquired in an action brought against a foreign corporation by the service of process on its president while in this district, although the corporation has no office or place of business within this state, and is not engaged in business here, except that it has made occasionally a purchase of goods by sending an agent here for that purpose. Its president came here to adjust a controversy between it and the plaintiff growing out of such a purchase, and was then served with the summons in this action. Stated in another form the question is whether a foreign corporation is 'found' here, within the meaning of section 739, Rev St., for the service of process, when its president is temporarily here upon the business of the corporation. Jurisdiction of the person is acquired by the courts of the United States only when the party sued is an inhabitant of or found within the district where the writ is served; and the laws of the state can neither extend, nor restrict the conditions upon which jurisdiction depends.

It was intimated in Merchants' Manuf'g Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. 13 F. 358, that a commercial corporation may be deemed constructively present, for the service of process upon it, outside the state of its incorporation wherever it has property and carries on its operations by its agents; but the point was not decided because it was not necessary to decide it in that case. Some of the authorities upon the subject are cited in the opinion in that case. When a corporation has so far identified itself with a locality beyond the state of its creation and domicile as to be found there for practical business purposes, it is reasonable to treat it as there also to respond to its obligations when called upon to do so in the courts of that locality. Accordingly, the tendency of later judicial opinion is in favor of relaxing the strictness of the former rule that process against a corporation must be served on its head or principle officer within the jurisdiction of the sovereignty where this artificial body resides. The inconvenience and practical injustice of permitting corporations to invoke the comity of a foreign state, for the exercise of their franchises and the transaction of their business, and at the same time to obtain exemption from suit, have been met by legislative enactments in many states authorizing the service of process, in such cases, upon the agents of the corporations. The judgments obtained in suits thus commenced...