Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/403

 PART V.] CORPORATE ACTS WITHOUT THE STATE. [§ 397. the transaction of business within a state, service on the head officer of such office will be a valid service on the corporation in respect of causes of action arising within the jurisdiction, 1 but not in respect of causes arising outside of the jurisdiction of the court whose process is served on the resident agent. 2 § 397. It is customary, however, for state legislatures by statute to designate the persons on whom service shall or may be made in actions against foreign cor- regulating porations doing business within the state. Service service - in accordance with the statute will be valid, for by coming within the state to do business, a foreign corporation submits itself to the state laws ; and it may thus submit itself expressly by filing a certificate pursuant to the statute designating an agent on whom service may be made. 3 Mich. 336; Latimer v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 43 Mo. 105; Moulin v. Ins. Co., 24 N. J. L. 222; Camden Rolling Mill Co. v. Swede Iron Co., 32 X. J. L. 15; State v. District Court, 26 Minn. 233, 234; Phillips v. Library Co., 141 Pa. St. 462; Blanc v. Paymaster Mg. Co., 95 Cal. 524; Crook u. Girard Iron Co., 87 Md. 138; Watkins Land Co. v. El- liott, 62 Kas. 291. 1 Tuchband v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 115 N. Y. 437; Newsby v. Colt's Patent Fire Arms Co., L. R. 7 Q. B. 293; City Fire Ins. Co. v. Carrugi, 41 Ga. 66, 671; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pleasants, 46 Ala. 641 ; Atlantic and G. R. R. Co. v. Jacksonville P. and M. R. R. Co., 51 Ga. 458; see Libbey v. Hodgdon, 9 X. H. 394. Compare Norton v. Bridge Co., 51 N. J. L. 442. 2 Bawknight o. Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co., 55 Ga. 194; see National Con- densed Milk Co. v. Bradenburgh, 40 N. J. L. Ill; Parke v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 44 Pa. St. 422. A verified answer that defendant is a corpora- tion created by the laws of another state, and not by the laws of the state where suit is brought; that the per- son upon whom process was served was its agent only in the county where the action was commenced, and that the contract sued on was made out of the state, and not by the agent served, and was not connected with the business of his office, is good on demurrer to abate the action for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. iEtna Ins. Co. v. Black, 80 Ind. 513. But when the subject-matter of the suit is one over which the court has jurisdiction, and the defendant, a foreign corporation, appears and goes to trial on the merits, without objection, it cannot except to the jurisdiction of the court over it. North Missouri R. R. Co. v. Akers, 4 Kan. 453. 3 See Reyer v. Odd Fellows' Ass'n, 157 Mass. 367; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Gibbs y. Queen Ins. Co., 63 N. Y. 114; Warren Mfg. Co. v. ^Etna Ins. Co., 2 Paine, 501; Benwood Iron Works v. Hutchinson, 101 Pa. St. 359; Iron Co. v. Construc- tion Co., 61 Mich. 226; Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 155 111. 204; Green v. Life Ass'n, 105 Iowa, 628. A " managing agent" of a foreign cor- poration on whom by statute process may be served, means some person in- vested by the corporation with gen- 383