t.ake,ll by plel\fn abatement, before to the merits, was changed, and the courts were. given full authority to protect themselves against the false pretenses of appatent parties. This is a statutory provision which ought not to be neglected. It was intended to promote the ends of justice, and is equiv. 'llent to an express enactment by congress that the circuit court shall not have jurisdiction of suits which do not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy of which they have cognizance, nor of suits in which parties have been improperly or collusively made or joined for the purpose of creating a case cognizable under the act."
See, also, Rae v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. 14 FED. REP. 401, which was a ease, like between two aliens, and Ryan v. Young, 9 Biss. 63, by Mr. Justice HARLAN. Both these cases, I think, are authority fOI thA ruling here. 'The case will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
BOSTON ELEOTRIO Co.
ELEOTRIC GAS LIGHTING
SAME v. NEW ENGLAND ELECTRIO
(Uircuit Court. D. Ma88achusett8.
May 20, 1885.)
;JURISDICTION OF CmculT COURT-FOREIGN CORPORATIONS-ATTACHMENT-PuB. ST. MASS. CR. 105, § 28.
Defendant corporations, organized under the laws of Maine, but having their principal place of business in Massachusetts, where a majority of their officers and directors resided, were sued in the circuit court for the district of .Massachusetts; the writs iJeing served by attachment of corporate property within the latter state, and by service on the corporate officers. Held, on plesa to the jurisdiction, that the court had no jurisdictiun.
Plea to Jurisdiction. J. E. Abbott, for plaintiffs. E. P. Payson and A. Eastma,n, for defenllants. COLT, J. The defendants' pleas, in both these cases, raise a. question of jurisdiction. The defendant corporations, organized under . the laws of Maine, have been sued in the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts. The writs were served by attachments of corporate property within this state, and by service upon the proper officers here, if such service could be legally made. It is agreed that the defendant corporations have a usual and principal place of business in Boston; that the president, treasurer, and a majority of the directors of each corporation reside in the state; and that the infringements for which these actions are brought were committed here. The act of 1875, (18 St. 470,) following the eleventh section of the judiciary act of 1789, provides that no civil suit shall be brought against any person in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or shall be found at the tim.e of serving the writ. Courts
BOSTON EI,ECTRIC CO.
EI,ECTRIO GAS LIGH'C'lG 00.
of the United States cannot acquire jurisdiction by an attachment of property merely, but there must be a personal service of the writ or process upon the defendant, or a voluntary appearance. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; Ex parte Railway Co. 103 U. S. 794; Nazro v. Cragin, 3 Dill. 474; Parsons v. Howard, 2 Woods, 1; Anderson v. Shaffer, 10 FED. REP. 266; Mohr tt Mohr Distilling Co. v. Insurance Co. 12 FED. REP. 474; Saddler v. Hudson, 2 Curt. 7. It is evident, therefore, that the court could not acquire jurisdiction simply by the attachment of the property of the defendant corporations under the provisions of the Massachusetts statute. Pub. St. c. 105, § The general rule is that a corporation cannot migrate beyond the state by whose laws it is created. Day v. India Rubber Co. 1 Blatchf. 628. But ihis rule has been modified, and it is now held that a cor· poration may be found in a foreign state, within the meaning of tho federal law, when it exercises its powers by express consent of the legislature of such state, (Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65;) or when it is required by a general law of the state to appoint an agent for the service of process, as a condition to the transaction of business within the state, (Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369;) or when, under a general law of the state, foreign corporations are made liable to suit without the appointment of an agent for that particular purpose. Williams v. Empire Transp. Co. 14 O. G. 523; Wilson Packing Co. v. Hunter, 7 Reporter, 455; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350; S. C. 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 354. A corporation of one state cannot do business in another state without the latter's consent, express .or implied; and that consent may be accompanied with such conditions as it may think proper to impose. St. Clair v.Oox, s'Up1'a. When the state, by local law, provides that foreign corporations doing business in the state shall be amenable to suit, such foreign cOl"porations thereafter carrying on business in the state are liable to suit. But clearly, by the great weight of authority, this mle has not been extended so as to permit a corporation to be sued in a foreign E!tate because it carries on busi. ness there, in the absence of a state law authorizing such suit. The supreme court say, in Lafayette In'S. 00. ·v. French: "We limit our decision to the case of a corporation acting in a state foreign to its existence under a law of that state, which recognized its for the purposes of making contracts, and being)lued on them through notice to its contracting agents." In Railroad Co. v. Harris, the conrt said: "It [the corporation] cannot migrate, but may exercise its authority in a foreign territory upon such conditions as may be prescribed by the law of the place, One of these conditions may be that it shall c<}nsent to be sued there. If it do business there, it will be presumed to have assented." Chief Justice WAITE thus dinnes the rule in Railroad 00. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5:
"It is well settled that a corporation of one state doing bustness tn another is suable where its business is done, if the laws make provision to that effect."
Perhaps the latest expression of the supreme court on this subject is in New England Mut. L. Ins. Go. v. Woodworth, 111 U. S. 138, S. C. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 364, where Mr. Justice BLATCHFORD says:
"In the courts of the United States, it is held that a corporation of one state, doing business in another, is suable in the cuurts of the United States established in the latter state, if the laws of that state so provide, and in the manner provided by those laws."
See, also, Eaton v. St. Louis Shakspear Min. ct S. Go. 7 FED. REP. 139; West v. Home Ins. Go. 18 FED. REP. 622. At the time these suits were brought, Massachusetts had no local law making foreign corporations doing business in the state amenable to suits, 'except foreign insurance companies, and except the provisions in relation to attachment, which, under a well-settled rule, could not give this court jurisdiction. Recently, however, feeling the necessity for such a law, a statute has been passed requiring all foreign corporations doing business in the state to appoint an agent, upon whom service can be made. Acts 1884, c. 330. The plaintiffs rely upon the case of Hayden v. Androscoggin Mills, 1 FED. REP. 93. A question of jurisdiction there arose on a motion to dismiss, and the decision was based primarily on the im· propriety of the motion. Judge LOWELL, however, goes on to discuss the merits of the question, and while he intimates, at the close, that if the question was brought up in some new form, his decision might be different, yet he gives it as his opinion that a foreign trading corporation doing business in the state of Massachusetts may be sued in the circuit court, by summons duly served upon an officer of the company, the fact of attachment being immaterial. We cannot adopt this view in the light of what we believe to be the great weight of authority on this question. Thfj pleas to the jurisdiction of the court are sustained.
NORTON, Chief Supervisor, v. BREWSTER, State Supervisor of Registration. 1
(Circuit (Jourt, E. D. Loui8iana. November 1, 1884.) The jurisdiction of the United States courts must appear of record, and be derived from congressional enactments. I. SAME-REV. ST. TIT. 26. Under title 26 of the Revised Statutes of the United States the circuit court js given jurisdiction at certain elections to appoint supervisors to scrutinize the election, and under title 70, Crimes, to try criminal violationa of the law.
lReported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orlean.