Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/103

 HAYDEN V. ANDROSCOGGIN MILLS. 95 �Fortunately the supreme court have taken a different view of the subject, and in three decisions bave held, in the first, that a corporation may be found in any place where it has exercised its corporate powers by express consent of the legis- lature; and in the second andthird, that a foreign company, which is required by a general law of the state to appoint an agent for service of process, as a condition to its transaction of business in the state, may be sued in either the state or federal courts. Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65; Lafa- fayette Ins. Co. v.French, 18 How.404 ; Exparte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369. �Since these decisions were made two cases have arisen in the circuits in whioh the general laws of a state making foreign corporations suable have been applied to suits in the courts of the United States, held within that state, without the appoint- ment of an agent for that particular purpose, Williams v. Empire Transportation Co. 14 Off. Gaz. 523; Wilson Packing Go. v. Hunter, 7 Eeporter, 455. �The case before me differs from any which has been decided in this : By the statutes of Massachusetts, as construed by the supreme judicial court, actions against foreign corpora- tions must be begun by effectuai attachment of property. Andrews v. Mich, Cent. R. Co. 99 Mass. 534. ïïere there was no such attachment. The Massachusetts law gives their courts jurisdiction when there is an attachment, though the corporation is not found in the state, having no agent or place of business there. Under our statutes an action cannot be begun in that way in the federal courts unless the defendant is found here. Therefore if there had been an attachment in this case the question would still remain, whether the defend- ant had been found here. Now no Massachusetts case, that I bave seen, holds that a foreign trading corporation, having its principal establishment here, is not found here, but must be brought in by publication, as in the case of a defendant act- ually absent. As attachment cannot give us jurisdiction, so the want of it cannot, in my opinion, take it away, if the defendant is here. The service is suiScient in form by the law of this state, and would bind a domestic corporation in ��� �