Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/918

882 882 HARVARD LAW REVIEW business even though no statute authorizes such service. Some cases have indeed gone to this length.^^ xhere would seem to be no objection on principle to this theory, but it has never met with complete and unqualified approval by the Supreme Court. In a famous dictum of Chief Justice Taney in Bank of Augusta v. Earle,^ the proposition was asserted in broad terms that "a cor- poration can have no legal existence out of the boundaries of the sovereignty by which it is created." Although since that dictum was promulgated, the broad doctrine there laid down hasbeen con- siderably limited, and the Supreme Court has in many cases stated that a corporation may be found outside the state wherein it was organized, yet the Supreme Court has never completely and def- initely repudiated the dictum. Two recent cases. Old Wayne Life Association v. McDonough ^ and Simon v. Southern Railway, ^^ de- cided by that court, tend to show a disapproval of, or at least a limitation on, the doctrine of corporate presence. In these cases it was held that under a statute providing for service on foreign corporations doing business within the state by service upon a public ofiicial, such service was insufficient if the cause of action arose in another state. 3. In explanation of Old Wayne Life Association v. McDonough and Simon v. Southern Railway, Learned Hand, J., has, in the case of Smolik V. Philadelphia 6* Reading Coal &* Iron Co.,^ suggested a third possible theory on which to base jurisdiction over foreign corporations. In that case it appeared that a New York statute required every foreign corporation doing business in New York to take out a license, which should not be issued unless the corpora- tion had appointed an agent within the state upon whom process might be served. The defendant corporation did appoint such an agent, and in an action brought in the federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, and based upon a cause of action which did not arise in New York, service was made upon the ^ La Compagnie G6n6rale Transatlantique v. Law & Co., [1899] A. C. 431; Wilson Packing Co. v. Hunter, 8 Biss. 429, Fed. Cas. No. 17,852 (1879). But see Desper v. Continental Water Meter Co., 137 Mass. 252 (1884). And see cases cited, Scott, Cas. Crv. Proc. 38, note. " 13 Pet. (U. S.) S19, S88 (1839). M 204 U. S. 8 (1907). w 236U. 5.115(1915). M 222 Fed. 148 (D. C, S. D., N. Y., 1915).