Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/37

17 JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. I? if the laws authorize service upon it there, it may well be considered as having a domicile there for the purposes of jurisdiction ; and there would seem to be no good reason why it should not be subject to be sued there for all purposes, and without regard to the origin or nature of the cause of action. There are in some States statutes expressly defining the jurisdic- tion of the courts over foreign corporations. The Civil Code of New York,^ which has been followed in many other States, provided that an action against a foreign correspondent might be brought (i) by a resident of the State for any cause of action, (2) by a plaintiff not a resident of the State, where the action is brought upon a contract made within the State, or the cause of action arose, or the subject-matter of the suit was situated, within the State. Under this provision it was held by the Court of Appeals of New York,^ that a non-resident of the State could not maintain an action against a foreign corporation where the cause of action arose out- side of the State, and no question was made in that case but that a resident might maintain a suit against such a corporation for any cause of action. It was said by Earl, J., that the distinction be- tween the privileges of residents and non-residents in this respect was not unconstitutional; but the court was not called upon to decide upon the validity of a judgment recovered by a resident against a foreign corporation in a cause of action arising outside of the State. Such a judgment would not be good unless the corporation had transacted business within the State, and process were served upon some officer or agent authorized to represent it there; ^ and if it were so served, the judgment would only be good on the principle that the statute of the State imposed this condition upon a foreign corporation doing business within its borders, and that the defend- ant, having come there by its agents, had by implication accepted this condition and so consented to the jurisdiction even over causes of action arising elsewhere. If the statute is explicit and the con- dition is distinctly imposed, it would seem that the corporation must be held to have submitted to the jurisdiction. The same principle applies to cases arising under the statutes requiring the appointment of an agent to receive service of proc- 1 Section 427. 2 Robinson v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 112 N. Y. 315 ; Palmer v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 84 N. Y. 63 ; 6 Thomp., Corp., § 8007. 3
 * St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350 ; Moulin v. Trenton Ins. Co., 24 N. J. L. 222.