the foreign corporation was not doing business, and it was immaterial whether it had complied with the statute.38

Where the agent carries on business in his own name and on his own account, hiring his office and clerks and paid like a factor by a commission, but differing from a factor in representing the corporation alone, the case is a more difficult one. It has been held in such a case that the corporation is carrying on the business, through its agent; 39 but the opinion in England is different. A corporation under such circumstances was held not suable in England as doing business there. Justice Gorell-Barnes said: "In a popular sense, no doubt, the business of the defendant corporation is carried on by the corporation in England, but I do not think that this is so in the eye of the law. It seems to me that the business carried on in this country is that of an agency for the defendant corporation." 40

§ 207. What is doing business: principal act outside State.

When the business is consummated outside the State, even though a part of the transaction takes place within the State, the corporation does not do business in the State. Thus where a foreign corporation solicits orders in the State by commercial travellers, the orders being transmitted to the corporation at its domicil and there filled, the sale is made and the business is therefore done at the domicil of the corporation. The foreign corporation in such a case is not doing business in the State.41 So where an offer for any contract, received by an

38 Greenville v. Greenville W. W. Co., 125 Ala. 625, 27 So. 764. 39 Lambe v. Dewhurst & Son, 16 Quebec S. C. 326.

40 The Princesse Clémentine, [1897] P. 18, 21.

41 Holder v. Aultman, 169 U. S. 81, 42 L. ed. 669; Payson v. Withers, Fed. Cas. 10,864, 5 Biss. 269; Lamb v. Bowser, Fed. Cas. 8009, 7 Biss. 372; Davis & R. B. & M. Co. v. Dix, 64 Fed. 406; Wagner v. Meakin, 92 Fed. 76, 33 C. C. A. 585, and note; St. v. Williams, 46 La. Ann. 922, 15 So. 290; M. I. Wilcox C. & S. Co. v. Mosher, 114 Mich. 64, 72 N. W. 117; Hart v. Livermore F. & M. Co., 72 Miss. 809, 17 So. 769; Blevins v. Fairley, 71 Mo. App. 259; Droege v. Ahrens & O. M. Co., 163 N. Y. 466, 57 N. E. 747; Tallapoosa Lumber Co. v. Holbert, 5 App. Div. 559, 39 N. Y. S. 432; People

agent within the State, is transmitted by him to the home office and there accepted, the business is done outside the State; the case being very different from that of the employment of a resident agent for the transaction of the business itself instead of for the mere transmission of offers. Thus where applications for insurance are received in the State, transmitted to the home office, and there accepted and the policy issued, the company does not do business in the State.4 In the same way it is not doing business in the State to solicit advertisements, 43 or subscriptions 44 or loans,45 or even to receive and transmit orders for the sale of goods.46 And where there is no one within the State acting as even an agent for transmitting an offer, as where an offer is sent by mail from within the State to the foreign corporation and accepted at its home office, there is obviously no business done by the corporation within the State.47

Even clearer is the case where the entire dealing by all v. Roberts, 27 App. Div. 455, 50 N. Y. S. 355; Vaughn Machine Co. v. Lighthouse, 64 App. Div. 138, 71 N. Y. S. 799; Cummer Lumber Co. v. Assoc. M. M. F. I. Co., 67 App. Div. 151, 73 N. Y. S. 608; Murphy Varnish Co. v. Connell, 10 Misc. 553, 32 N. Y. S. 492; American B. & B. Co. v. Addickes, 19 Misc. 36, 42 N. Y. S. 871; Waller v. Rothfield, 36 Misc. 177, 73 N. Y. S. 141; Jones v. Keeler, 40 Misc. 221, 81 N. Y. S. 648; Toledo Commercial Co. v. Glen Mfg. Co., 55 Oh. St. 217, 45 N. E. 197; Hacheny v. Leary, 12 Ore. 40, 7 Pac. 329; Mearshon v. Pottsville L. Co., 187 Pa. 12, 40 Atl. 1019, 67 A. S. R. 560; Wolff Dryer Co. v. Bigler, 192 Pa. 466, 43 Atl. 1092; Macdougall v. Schofield Woolen Co., 16 Quebec S. C. 411.

42 Marine Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., 41 Fed. 643; Hazeltine v. Miss. Val. F. Ins. Co., 55 Fed. 743; State M. F. I. Assoc. v. Brinkley S. & H. Co., 61 Ark. 1, 31 S. W. 158, 54 A. S. R. 191; New Orleans v. Rhenish W. Lloyds, 31 La. Ann. 781; New Orleans v. Virginia F. & M. Ins. Co., 33 La. Ann. 10; Attorney General v. Netherland F. Ins. Co., 181 Mass. 522, 63 N. E. 950; Fulton v. Commercial T. M. A. Assoc., 172 Pa. 117, 33 Atl. 324.

43 Boardman v. S. S. McClure Co., 123 Fed. 614.

44 Beard v. Union & A. Pub. Co., 71 Ala. 60.

45 Scottish A. M. Co. v. Ogden, 49 La. Ann. 8, 21 So. 116; American F. L. M. Co. v. Pierce, 49 La. Ann. 390, 21 So. 972.

46 Penn Collieries Co. v. McKeever, 93 App. Div. 303, 87 N. Y. S. 869. 47 Shelby S. T. Co. v. Burgess Gun Co., 8 App. Div. 444, 40 N. Y. S. 871; Vaughn Machine Co. v. Lighthouse, 64 App. Div. 138, 71 N. Y. S. 799.

[Chap. VIII. parties to the transaction takes place outside the State, though it has reference to some act done or to be done or to property situated within the State. So it is not doing business within a State to make outside the State a loan on security of land within the State; 48 to take outside the State title to land within the State; 49 to lease outside the State telephones within the State belonging to the foreign corporation; 50 to lease outside the State a steamboat belonging to the corporation to be run by the charterer within the State; 51 to sell outside the State goods to be delivered within the State; to purchase outside the State negotiable instruments executed within the State; 53 to receive at its home office premiums on policies issued to persons within the State which by their terms call for payment by mail at the home office; 54 or to stipulate in a mortgage deed made outside the State that the contract shall be construed and governed by the laws of the State.55

52

§ 208. What is doing business: exceptional doctrine in Alabama. The Alabama courts have adopted a more stringent doctrine. They hold that if the foreign corporation does a single act of business within the State, or even solicits through an agent a single loan, it violates the statute which forbids it to do "any

48 Eastern B. & L. Ass. v. Bedford, 88 Fed. 7; Caesar v. Capell, 83 Fed. 403; Sullivan v. Sheehan, 89 Fed. 247; Scruggs v. Scottish Mtg. Co., 54 Ark. 566, 16 S. W. 563; Reeves v. Harper, 43 La. Ann. 516, 9 So. 104; Peo. Bldg. Loan & Sav. Ass. v. Berlin, 201 Pa. 1, 50 Atl. 308, 88 A. S. R. 764; Norton v. Union Bank & Trust Co., (Tenn. Ch. App.) 46 S. W. 544; Neal v. New Orleans L. B. & S. Ass., 100 Tenn. 607, 46 S. W. 755.

49 Goldsberry v. Carter, 100 Va. 438, 41 S. E. 858.

50 United States v. American B. T. Co., 29 Fed. 17.

51 Savage v. Atlanta H. I. Co., 55 App. Div. 20, 66 N. Y. S. 1105.

52 Cook v. Rome Brick Co., 98 Ala. 409, 12 So. 918; In re Simonds Furnace Co., 61 N. Y. S. 974, 30 Misc. 209; H. Zuberbier Co. v. Harris, (Tex. Civ. App.) 35 S. W. 403.

53 Bamberger v. Schoolfield, 160 U. S. 149, 40 L. ed. 374; Miller v. Williams, 27 Colo. 34, 59 Pac. 740.

54 State v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., 106 Tenn. 282, 61 S. W. 75. 55 British & A. M. Co. v. Winchell, 62 Ark. 160, 34 S. W. 891.

business" before filing a certificate.56 These decisions were followed by the Supreme Court of the United States, construing the Alabama statute in an appeal from the Federal Court in Alabama,57 and therefore bound by the peculiarities of Alabama law, without at all weakening the force of its earlier decisions the other way on the general question. The same doctrine appears to prevail in Nevada.58

§ 209. What is doing business: taking part in suit.

59

It is everywhere held that bringing suit is not doing businor is filing a petition in court.60 And of course defending a suit is not doing business.o1

ness;

§ 210. What is doing business: question for the jury.

It is generally held that the question whether a given act is a doing of business is, when the facts are in doubt, a question for the jury.62

62

56 Denson v. Chattanooga N. B. & L. Assoc., 107 Fed. 777; Farrior v. New England M. Security Co., 88 Ala. 275, 7 So. 200; State v. Bristol Sav. Bank, 108 Ala. 3, 18 So. 533, 54 A. S. R. 141, and cases cited.

57 Chattanooga N. B. & L. Assoc. v. Denson, 189 U. S. 408, 47 L. ed. 870. 58 Brooks v. Nevada Nickel Syndicate, 24 Nev. 311, 53 Pac. 597.

50 American L. & T. Co. v. East & W. R. R., 37 Fed. 242; Ginn v. New England M. S. Co., 92 Ala. 135, 8 So. 388; Cook v. Rome Brick Co., 98 Ala. 409, 12 So. 918; McCall v. American F. L. M. Co., 99 Ala. 427, 12 So. 806; St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. v. Fire Assoc., 55 Ark. 163, 18 S. W. 43; Buffalo Z. & C. Co. v. Crump, 70 Ark. 525, 69 S. W. 572, 91 A. S. R. 87; Utley v. Clark G. L. Min. Co., 4 Col. 369; Kephart v. Peo., 28 Colo. 73, 62 Pac. 946; Amer. B. H. & O. S. S. Machine Co. v. Moore, 2 Dak. 280, 8 N. W. 131; Fuller & Johnson Mfg. Co. v. Foster, 4 Dak. 329, 30 N. W. 166; Mandel v. Swan L. & Cattle Co., 154 Ill. 177, 40 N. E. 462, 27 L. R. A. 313, 45 A. S. R. 124; Powder R. C. Co. v. Custer County, 9 Mont. 145, 22 Pac. 383; George R. Barse L. S. C. Co. v. Range Valley C. Co., 16 Utah, 59, 50 Pac. 630; Chicago T. & T. Co. v. Bashford, (Wis.) 97 N. W. 940.

60 Gates Iron Works v. Cohen, 7 Colo. App. 341, 43 Pac. 667.

61 American L. & T. Co. v. East & W. R. R., 37 Fed. 242; Christian v. Amer. F. L. Mtg. Co., 89 Ala. 198, 7 So. 427.

62 Oakland Sugar Mill Co. v. Fred W. Wolf Co., 118 Fed. 239; Audenried v. East Coast Milling Co., 124 Fed. 697; Com. v. Read Phosphate Co., 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2284, 67 S. W. 45; Liebig Mfg. Co. v. Hill, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 15.

§ 211. Effect of compliance with the statute.

After a foreign corporation has complied with all the conditions imposed upon it by statute it has all the rights which a similar domestic corporation has, in other words it is in the same position.63 Thus it may challenge the validity of statutes affecting it.64 It may become surety on a bond; 65 and acquire land; 66 and it may take a greater rate of interest than the legal rate if such greater rate is allowed by statute to domestic corporations.67 So, too, its agents are subject to no greater liability than the agents of similar domestic corporations.68 And these statements remain true though the corporation is in no way regarded as a domestic corporation; nor is it any less a non-resident corporation than before. Thus it is still subject to attachment as a non-resident,70 and if it brings suit it may be compelled as a non-resident to file security for costs; 71 and it may remove a suit brought against it by a citizen of the State to the Federal courts.72

69

Furthermore, the foreign corporation may exercise all the rights granted by its charter insofar as they are not prohibited by the conditions imposed by the statutes, or contrary to the public policy of the State in which the corporation desires to act.73 And it may compel the issue to it of a license after it has fulfilled the forms of the law.74 As the foreign corpora

63 Security Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Elbert, 153 Ind. 198, 54 N. E. 753; Santa Clara Female Academy v. Sullivan, 116 Ill. 375, 6 N. E. 183, 56 A. R. 776; Floyd v. Nat'l Loan & Inv. Co., 49 W. Va. 327, 38 S. E. 653, 87 A. S. R. 805, 54 L. R. A. 536.

64 Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Cornell, 110 Fed. 816.

65 Lovejoy v. Isbell, 70 Conn. 557, 40 Atl. 532; Less v. Ghio, 92 Tex. 651, 51 S. W. 502.

66 Lancaster v. Amsterdam Imp. Co., 140 N. Y. 576, 35 N. E. 964.

67 Interstate Bldg. & Loan Ass. v. Brown, 128 Ala. 462, 29 So. 656. 68 Hudson v. Compere, 94 Tex. 449, 61 S. W. 389.

69 Post, § 773.

70 Cowardin v. Universal L. I. Co., 32 Grat. (Va.) 445.

71 J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Faith, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 665.

72 Fox v. American C. I. & S. Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 207.

73 Am. Waterworks Co. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 73 Fed. 956.

74 Bankers' Life Ins. Co. v. Howland, 73 Vt. 1, 48 Atl. 435, 57 L. R. A. 374.