Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/405

 PART V.] CORPORATE ACTS WITHOUT THE STATE. [§ 400. what service shall be deemed sufficient for that purpose is to be determined by the legislative power of the country in which the proceeding is instituted, subject only to the limitation that the service must be such as may reasonably be expected to give the notice aimed at." The court said they did not determine what would have been the effect outside the state of the judgment rendered upon such service, and from the authorities heretofore cited and the principles heretofore stated, it is clear that such a service and a judgment rendered thereon would have no validity whatsoever or be recognized in the courts of any other state. 1 A judgment, however, rendered in a suit in which the foreign corporation is brought within the jurisdiction of the court, must under the Federal constitution be recognized in all the states. 3 § 399. Finally, although the defendant foreign corporation is not brought within the jurisdiction of the court, a . Proceed- valid judgment in re?n may be entered against any mgsinrem. property attached within the state. 3 But no valid personal judgment against the corporation could be rendered in an action commenced in this way. 4 § 400. In a number of the states exist statutes prescribing the terms upon which foreign corporations shall be statutes permitted to do business. These terms ordinarily are termson that a corporation before commencing business shall porpora- file a certificate in the prescribed public office, desig- tions - nating the principal place of business of the corporation within the state and a resident agent on whom process may be served. 5 1 Goldey b. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518; See Phillips B. Library Co., 141 Pa. St. 462; Branson b. Trum Bros. Machine Co., 16 Phila. (Pa.) 112. 2 Lafayette Ius. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404. 3 Bushel v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 15 S. & R. 174; see Warren Mfg. Co. v. ^Etna Ins. Co., 2 Paine, 501; Latimer v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 43 Mo. 105; Barnett v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 114. 5 By soliciting and receiving sub- scriptions for a newspaper published 25 by it in another state, a foreign cor- poration is not doing business in Alabama within the meaning of the section of the Alabama constitution, which prohibits foreign corporations from doiug any business in the state without having at least one known place of business and an authorized agent therein. Beard v. The Union, etc., Publishing Co., 71 Ala. 60. A mining company which owns land and leases it for agricultural pur- poses is not doing business in the state. Mo. C. & M. Co. b. Ladd, 160 Mo. 435. But making a loan of 385
 * St. Clair b. Cox, 106 U. S. 350.