Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/25

5 JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 5 and representing the corporation in such State ; and (3) the exist- ence of some local law making such corporation, or foreign cor- porations generally, amenable to suit there as a condition, express or implied, of doing business in the State." Such are the conditions under which alone, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, jurisdiction may be obtained by the courts of one State over the corporations of another. There are some courts that assume jurisdiction in cases in which all these conditions are not fulfilled ; but the doctrine of the Supreme Court is based upon sound legal principles and the considerations of justice, and is con- curred in for the most part by the courts of the several States. The question I wish to suggest is whether still another condition must not coexist with these three in certain cases in order that jurisdiction may be had over a foreign corporation. Must not the cause of action have some relation to the business which the cor- poration is transacting in the State, or to the scope of the agency of the persons by whom it is represented ? Does the fact that a corporation transacts some business within the State make it sub- ject to an action over a matter having no relation to that business ? Or, does the fact that a corporation, being required by statute to do so as a condition of doing business, has appointed an agent to re- ceive service of process in a certain State, make it amenable there to an action for a tort committed elsewhere ? Does a corporation of one State or country, which, for the purpose of doing some little business in another jurisdiction, appoints an agent to receive service of process, make itself liable to an action there by anybody, or for any cause ? Or, is the effect of appointing such agent only to make the corporation liable to be sued by citizens of the State on causes of action arising within the State, and out of the business done within the State ? The question is obviously an important one, and is one which counsel are called upon to answer in advising corporations as to the effect of designating an agent to receive service of process, which is now required in so many States as a condition of doing business there. The subject has been dis- cussed in recent cases, but there is a difference of opinion among the courts, and the question is not yet fully settled by judicial decision. In some States, and in one at least of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals,^ it has been held that by service of pro- cess upon an agent designated under the statute for that purpose, 1 Johnston v. Insurance Co., 132 Mass. 422 (1882) ; Mooney v. Buford and George Mfg. Co., 34 U. S. App. 581 ; 72 Fed. Rep. 32 (1896).