State; Robinson v. National Stockyard Co., 20 Blatchf. 514, 12 Fed. 362, holding consequently that want of proper service on defendant corporation cannot be raised by demurrer to complaint; Wilson Packing Co. v. Hunter, 8 Biss. 431, 432, Fed. Cas. 17,852, holding corporation doing business in foreign State is liable to suit there, even though there be no express statute authorizing it; Fonda v. British American Assur. Co., 9 Fed. Cas. 354, holding appointment of agent for service amounts to agreement with State that corporation may be sued there; Ehrman v. Teutonia Ins. Co., 1 McCrary, 128, 129, 1 Fed. 476, 477, holding foreign corporation bound by service on auditor, although it had never filed its written consent thereto as required by statute; Brownell v. Troy etc. R. R. Co., 18 Blatchf. 244, 3 Fed. 762, holding appointment of agent upon whom statute provides service may be made amounts to consent that service shall be made upon him; Mohr Distilling Co. v. Insurance Cos., 12 Fed. 476, holding foreign insurance companies doing business through agents may be served in State where such agent is found doing business; Merchants' Mfg. Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 21 Blatchf. 111, 13 Fed. 359, right to object to service of process is waived by foreign corporation, which avails itself of comity of State to transact business therein; Gray v. Quicksilver Min. Co., 10 Sawy. 263, 21 Fed. 289, and Consolidated Store-Service Co. v. Lamson Cons. Store-Service Co., 41 Fed. 834, both holding similarly; Van Dresser v. Oregon Ry. etc. Co., 48 Fed. 205, holding State law providing for service upon agents of foreign corporations doing business in the State is binding upon all foreign corporations doing business there; Mooney v. Buford etc. Mfg. Co., 72 Fed. 41, 18 C. C. A. 421, holding foreign corporation, which has complied with statute, requiring appointment of agent for service, may be sued on contracts made without the State; Sullivan v. Sullivan Timber Co., 103 Ala. 375, 25 L. R. A. 544, 15 South. 942, holding under local statute that foreign corporation can only be sued in county in which it does business; Colorado Iron Works v. Sierra Grande Min. Co., 15 Colo. 508, 22 Am. St. Rep. 437, 25 Pac. 328, holding single purchase made by foreign corporation is doing business within rule sufficient to give jurisdiction in action for purchase money; Williams v. East Tennessee etc. Ry. Co., 90 Ga. 522, 16 S. E. 304, holding under rule foreign railway corporation is bound by implied assent to conditions imposed as to the bringing of actions; Wall v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 69 Iowa, 500, 29 N. W. 427, holding foreign railway doing business in a State is a resident thereof within meaning of statute of limitations; German Bank v. American Fire Ins. Co., 83 Iowa, 495, 32 Am. St. Rep. 319, 50 N. W. 54, holding foreign corporation, which has appointed agent for service of process, becomes a domestic corporation within the meaning of the attachment laws; Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Council Bluffs Ins. Co., 95 Iowa, 35, 63 N. W. 566, holding foreign corporation doing insurance

business within State implies consent to statutory condition that broker shall be deemed agent of insurer; Sparks v. National Masonic Accident Assn., 100 Iowa, 466, 69 N. W. 681, holding insurance company which does business in State cannot question validity of service upon agent upon the ground that it has not filed written authority as required by law; German Ins. Co. v. Hall, 1 Kan. App. 46, 41 Pac. 70, presumption that corporation has complied with condition precedent to doing business is conclusive; McNichol v. United States Mercantile Reporting Co., 74 Mo. 473, holding State may authorize rendition of personal judgment against foreign corporation, doing business therein, by service of process upon agent; Smith v. Pilot Mining Co., 47 Mo. App. 417, legal residence of corporation is place where it exercises its corporate functions; King v. National M. & E. Co., 4 Mont. 7, 1 Pac. 730, foreign corporation within the benefit of the statute of limitations, even though it has not complied with the law regarding appointment of agent for service of process; Humphreys v. Newport News & M. V. Co., 33 W. Va. 137, 10 S. E. 40, holding foreign corporation doing business within a State becomes subject to process, even in action upon cause arising without the State; State v. Milwaukee etc. R. Co., 45 Wis. 599, applying rule where proceeding was quo warranto; Philadelphia Fire Assn. v. New York, 119 U. S. 123, 30 L. Ed. 348, 7 Sup. Ct. 115, dissenting opinion in Stout v. Sioux City etc. R. R. Co., 3 McCrary, 6, 8 Fed. 797, Reyer v. Odd Fellows' Accident Assn., 157 Mass. 372, 34 Am. St. Rep. 292, 32 N. E. 471, Mahany v. Kephart, 15 W. Va. 622, and Moch v. Virginia etc. Ins. Co., 4 Hughes, 120, 10 Fed. 706, all arguendo; Queensbury v. People's B. & L. Assn., 44 W. Va. 516, 30 S. E. 74, that mere appointment of agent for service of process does not make corporation domestic; Boston Electric Co. v. Electric Gas etc. Co., 23 Fed. 839, holding Massachusetts Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of action against Maine corporation doing business in Massachusetts in absence of statute permitting foreign corporations to do business in latter State.

Distinguished in United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 29 Fed. 35, 37, holding corporation having extensive property interests in State, through operations of licensee of its patents, is not doing business. in such State within the rule; St. Louis Wire Mill Co. v. Consolidated Barb-Wire Co., 32 Fed. 804, holding service on officer of foreign corporation in State on pleasure trip, where such corporation had no officer or agent within the State, and its only business therein consisted in making occasional purchase of raw material, was not sufficient to give jurisdiction to render judgment against such foreign corporation; Maxwell V. Atchison etc. R. Co., 34 Fed. 288, discussing question of the character or amount of business which a foreign corporation must do within a State to subject its agent to service of process, and holding service upon

VII-24

a passenger agent insufficient; Rothrock v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 161 Mass. 425, 42 Am. St. Rep. 420, 23 L. R. A. 863, 37 N. E. 207, refusing to sustain judgment rendered in foreign State against insurance company, where service was made on auditor, but no consent had been filed.

Effect upon contracts of foreign corporation of its noncompliance with domestic statutes. Note, 2 Ann. Cas. 67.

Compelling foreign corporation seeking to do business to designate person on whom process may be served. Note, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 558.

Corporation is regarded for purposes of Federal jurisdiction as if it were a citizen of State where created, and no averment or proof as to citizenship of its members elsewhere is permitted.

Approved in National Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 121, 27 L. Ed. 89, 1 Sup. Ct. 59, holding corporation created under laws of United Kingdom a citizen thereof for purpose of removing cause to Federal court; Eaton v. St. Louis etc. Min. Co., 2 McCrary, 365, 7 Fed. 141, holding corporation organized in Illinois foreign when sued in Missouri; Williams v. Missouri etc. Ry. Co., 3 Dill. 272, 273, Fed. Cás. 17,728, holding corporation organized in Kansas a citizen of that State, and not of Missouri, into which it had gone and was doing business; Shaw v. Quincy Min. Co., 145 U. S. 450, 36 L. Ed. 772, 12 Sup. Ct. 937, holding corporation organized in one State, and having principal place of business in another, is citizen of former; McCabe v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 4 McCrary, 497, 13 Fed. 831, holding corporation organized in one State, but subject to suit in another, is foreign in latter State, within meaning of statute of limitations; Pacific R. R. Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 5 McCrary, 376, 378, 23 Fed. 566, 568, applying rule, even where corporation had no place of business, office or officer in the State of its creation; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 284, 20 L. Ed. 576, holding corporation is citizen of State where organized, within the clause of the Constitution extending judicial power of Federal courts to controversies between citizens of different States; Blackburn v. Selma etc. R. R. Co., 2 Flipp. 535, 536, Fed. Cas. 1467, holding parties acting, claiming to be and dealing as a corporation of Tennessee are estopped to deny that the corporation is a Tennessee corporation when sued in the Federal courts of that State; Fales v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. 678, holding foreign corporation cannot by doing business in a State acquire residence there so as to authorize remanding a suit brought by citizen of that State; Filli v. Delaware etc. R. Co., 37 Fed. 66, holding action can only be brought against corporation in State of its creation, notwithstanding its office and principal business is in another State; Zambrino v. Galveston etc. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. 451, 452, holding action would lie against corporation in western district of Texas, where it had

its principal place of business in castern district but its road extended into western district; Purcell v. British Land etc. Co., 42 Fed. 467, foreign corporation does not by transacting business in a State acquire such a residence as to defeat right to removal of cause; Myers v. Murray, 43 Fed. 697, averment that corporation was organized under one State precludes the idea that it may be a resident of another; United States v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 49 Fed. 302, following rule; Ysleta v. Canada, 67 Fed. 7, applying rule to case of municipal corporation; Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville etc. R. Co., 75 Fed. 442, 447, 22 C. C. A. 378, holding corporation of one State reincorporated under another, remains a citizen of the first for jurisdictional purposes; Central etc. R. Co. v. Carr, 76 Ala. 392, 52 Am. Rep. 342, holding railroad company incorporated in two States has a legal residence in both of them; Tunstall v. Parish of Madison, 30 La. Ann., pt. 1, 475, a parish is a citizen of State where organized upon proceeding for removal of cause; Boston Investment Co. v. Boston, 158 Mass. 463, 33 N. E. 581, holding corporation organized in one State, and doing business in another is not resident of latter for purposes of taxation; Baltimore etc. R. Co. v. Cary, 28 Ohio St. 212, 215, 221, holding corporation is citizen of State where created, within meaning of provision of Constitution extending judicial power of United States to controversies between citizens of different States.

Domicile of corporations. Note, 65 Am. Dec. 264.

Nonresident's right to sue foreign corporation. Note, 70 L. R. A. 527, 536, 541, 547.

Several States may by competent legislation unite in creating the same corporation or in combining several corporations into one.

Approved in Wilmer v. Atlanta etc. Ry. Co., 2 Woods, 417, Fed. Cas. 17,775, holding two States may by concurrent legislation unite in creating the same corporate body; and in Wilmer v. Atlanta etc. Ry. Co., 2 Woods, 454, 455, Fed. Cas. 17,776, to same effect; Copeland v. Memphis etc. R. R. Co., 3 Woods, 666, Fed. Cas. 3209, holding corporation created by two States is citizen of both; Pacific R. R. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 5 McCrary, 376, 378, 23 Fed. 566, 568, holding corporation formed by consolidation of corporations of different States not foreign where sued in the courts of one of the States; Uphoff v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 5 Fed. 547, holding effect of Kentucky statute was to make Louisiana railway company a Kentucky corporation also; Stout v. Sioux City etc. R. R. Co., 3 McCrary, 6, 8 Fed. 797, holding Iowa corporation also a corporation of Nebraska; Graham v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 14 Fed. 757, holding consolidated corporation may be corporation of several States; Burger v. Grand Rapids etc. R. R. Co., 22 Fed. 563, holding railway company composed of two corporations of different States is citizen of both

States for purposes of Federal jurisdiction; Paul v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 44 Fed. 514, corporation formed by consolidation of corporations of different States retains the citizenship of each so as to defeat right of removal of cause where suit is brought in any of those States; Overman Wheel Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co., 46 Fed. 579, holding mere averment that corporation was organized under laws of one State does not preclude the idea that it might also be organized under the laws of another, and so be a resident of the latter State; Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville etc. R. Co., 75 Fed. 442, 447, 22 C. C. A. 378, holding corporation of Indiana may also be corporation of Kentucky; Meyer v. Johnston, 53 Ala. 321, holding corporations identical, even where incorporated under different names; Meyer v. Johnston, 64 Ala. 657, affirming doctrine of preceding citation; Grangers' Life etc. Ins. Co. v. Kamper, 73 Ala. 345, holding corporation may be created by State having as one of its constituents a foreign corporation; Central R. & Banking Co. v. Carr, 76 Ala. 392, 52 Am. Rep. 342, holding railroad corporation incorporated in two States has a legal residence in each of them; Angier v. East Tennessee etc. R. Co., 74 Ga. 638, 641, holding corporation may become domestic corporation of another State by purchasing franchise and assuming obligations of domestic corporation; State Board v. Morris etc. R. Co., 49 N. J. L. 219, 7 Atl. 839, holding State legislature may confer franchise upon foreign corporation without making it a local corporation; Hall v. Bank of Virginia, 14 W. Va. 623, corporation having charters from two States is domestic corporation of both; Baltimore etc. R. Co. v. Pittsburgh etc. R. Co., 17 W. Va. 872, 875, 876, 878, to same effect.

Distinguished in Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Auditor General, 53 Mich. 88, 18 N. W. 590, holding a corporation may not be created by joint act of several States except by compact or treaty.

Consolidation of corporations. Note, 79 Am. Dec. 427.

Consolidated interstate corporation as domestic corporation of one of States. Note, 15 L. R. A. 82.

A State may make a corporation of another State a corporation of its own as to any property within its territorial jurisdiction.

Approved in Goodwin v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 124 Fed. 360, holding corporation incorporated in Massachusetts and Connecticut, suit in Massachusetts Circuit Court by citizen of Massachusetts not allowable; Russell v. St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 71 Ark. 454, 457, 75 S. W. 727, 728, foreign corporation complying with Acts 1889, p. 43, c. 34, became domestic corporation with power of eminent domain; Carolina Coal & Ice Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 144 N. C. 738, 57 S. E. 446, where a foreign corporation bought in railroad property at a mortgage sale, it became subject to jurisdiction of the State court; Debnam v. Tele