Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/769

 762 ' FEDERAL REPORTER. �George W. Harmon and Aldace F. Walker, for plaîntiff. �Charles N. Davenport, for defendant. �Wheeleb, D, J. The plaintiff is set up in the writ as a citi- zen of Vermont; the defendant as a corporation of New York» lessee of the Southern Vermont Eailroad in Vermont, in pos- eession and running the road under the lease. The statute» of Vermont provide that such lesaee of a railroad ■within the etate, residing out of the state, shall appoint one person resi- dent in the state, upon whom service of every kind of proces» known to the laws of the state may at any time be made; and that ail such service upon the person so appointed shall be a legal service on the lessee. Gen. St. Vt. c. 28, § 118. The defendant appointed an agent under this statute, as ia alleged in the writ, and the writ was served upon the agent in the manner provided by the laws of the state for serving such process. The defendant moves to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction of the defendant by this service, because, it is said, that if the defendant can be found here by reason of being a lessee of a railroad here, so that service can bo made upon the defendant here, it bas become a citizen here; and that, if not, the service here cannot be good under any law of the state, and that this law of the state does not apply to service of such process. �AU corporations doing business within the limits of the state become subject to that extent to the laws of the state, and by eoming or sending into the state to transact business consent to be so subject to the laws of the state relating to the business as fuUy as if they so expressly stipulated in writing, either voluntarily or pursuant to requirement of Bome law of the state. The defendant, by being a lessee of a railroad within the state, became subject to this stat- ute of the state relating to a process against it; and by appointing an agent under the statute consented to service upon the agent, as the law provided service might be made as efïectually as if the law had required such express consent and it had been fully given. Railroad Go. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65. In Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369, it was held that a corporation out of a state doing business in the ����