These statutes limiting the right to sue a foreign corporation are constitutional, 165

A foreign corporation is exempt from supplementary proceedings in New York if it is doing business therein;166 and it remains so exempt even after the appointment of a receiver.167

The State laws limiting the jurisdiction in suits against foreign corporations do not affect the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. In a suit between a corporation and a foreigner or citizen of another State the Federal courts have jurisdiction by the Constitution, and venue can be had wherever the corporation can be found. 168 Therefore a foreign corporation may be sued by a foreigner, or by a citizen or corporation of another State, in any district where it is found doing business, although the courts of the State do not permit the suit.169 The jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States is not created by, and does not depend upon, the statutes of the several States.170

§ 286. Statute of limitations.

If a foreign corporation has been doing business within a State, and has in consequence been liable to service of process, it may plead the statute of limitations. 171 Conversely, if a corporation has not had an agent within the State on whom process could be served it could not plead the statute; 172 and

165 Robinson v. Oceanic S. N. Co., supra.

166 Vietor v. Richards Co., 20 Misc. 289, 45 N. Y. S. 800.

167 Vietor v. Richards Co., 20 Misc. 289, 45 N. Y. S. 800.

168 Ante, § 75.

160 Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 42 L. ed. 964; Hayden v. Androscoggin Mills, 1 Fed. 93; Merchants Mfg. Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry., 63 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 459.

170 Gray, J., in Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, supra.

171 Southern Ry. Co. v. Mayes, 113 Fed. 84; King v. National M. & E. Co., 4 Mont. 1, 1 Pac. 727; Turcott v. Yazoo & M. V. R. R., 101 Tenn. 102, 45 S. W. 1067; but see contra (semble), Larson v. Aultman & Taylor Co., 86 Wis. 281, 56 N. W. 915, 39 A. S. R. 893, depending on the peculiar wording of the Wisconsin statutes

172 Williams v. Iron Belt Bldg. & Loan Ass., 131 N. C. 267, 42 S. E. 607.

so if it fails to comply with the statute and appoints an agent to receive service of process. 173 In New York, however, it is generally held a foreign corporation may not plead the statute of limitations.174 The subject has been fully discussed elsewhere. 175

173 Johnson & L. D. G. Co. v. Cornell, 4 Okla. 412, 46 Pac. 860. 174 Robeson v. Cent. R. R. of N. J., 76 Hun, 444, 28 N. Y. S. 104.

175 Ante, § 76.

CHAPTER XII.

PROCEDURE IN SUITS AGAINST CORPORATIONS.

291. Allegations in the plaintiff's | § 294. Return of service of process.

2

The declaration should state that the defendant is a foreign corporation,1 and that it is doing business in the State; but it is not necessary to allege that it has complied with the statute and obtained permission to do business, nor in what State in was incorporated.4

3

Where, as under the New York practice, a foreign corporation can be sued only by a resident or on a cause of action arising within the State it is not necessary in the plaintiff's complaint to allege his own residence, or that the cause of action arose within the State; if nothing appears in the complaint to show that the case is one in which the court has no jurisdiction, the complaint is good. If, however, the plain

5

1 Continental Ins. Co. v. Mansfield, 45 Miss. 311.

2 St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350, 27 L. ed. 222.

3 Home F. B. Order v. Jones, (Tex. Civ. App.) 48 S. W. 219.

4 Machen v. Western U. T. Co., 63 S. C. 363, 41 S. E. 448.

5 Gurney v. Grand Trunk Ry., 59 Hun, 625, 13 N. Y. S. 645; Brown v. Travelers L. & A. I. Co., 21 App. Div. 42, 47 N. Y. S. 253; Herbert v. Montana Diamond Co., 81 App. Div. 212, 80 N. Y. S. 717; Sims v. Bonner, 16 N. Y. S. 801, 42 N. Y. St. Rep. 14; Hand v. Society for Savings, 18 N. Y. S. 157, 19 N. Y. S. 910; Campbell v. Texas C. R. R., 15 Misc. 442, 37 N. Y. S. 213. A few cases contra do not seem to represent the law; though they were cases arising on a motion to serve summons by publication, where on account of the wording of the statute a different rule may prevail. Bogert Otto G. E. Works, 28 App. Div. 463, 51 N. Y. S. 118; Foster v. Electric

V.

tiff appears on the complaint to be a foreign corporation, it has been held that the complaint should allege that the cause of action arose in the State."

§ 292. Allegations in affidavit for attachment.

An affidavit on which to found an attachment must, it would seem, show not only the cause of action but all things necessary to confer the right of attachment; and consequently, in New York, it must show either the residence of the plaintiff or the origination of the cause of action within the State." And on a motion and affidavit for service of summons by publication, the necessary jurisdictional facts must also appear in the affidavit. And in New York, where summons by publication is issued on a verified complaint, it seems that for this purpose the complaint must contain the necessary jurisdictional allegations. It must also be alleged for this purpose that the defendant is a foreign corporation.10

8

§ 293. Allegations in the defendant's pleadings.

The fact that a defendant corporation has not filed its articles, appointed an agent to receive service of process, or otherwise complied with law does not bar it from making a H. R. Co., 16 Misc. 147, 37 N. Y. S. 1063. If an allegation were necessary, it could be supplied by amendment at the trial. Voshefskey v. Hillside C. & I. Co., 21 App. Div. 168, 47 N. Y. S. 386.

6 Selser Bros. Co. v. Potter Produce Co., 80 Hun, 554, 30 N. Y. S. 294. 7 Oliver v. Walter H. C. M. Co., 57 Hun, 588, 10 N. Y. S. 711; Ladenburg v. Commercial Bank, 87 Hun, 269, 33 N. Y. S. 821; Coolidge v. American Realty Co., 92 App. Div. 622, 86 N. Y. S. 318. But see Bradley v. Interstate L. & C. Co., 12 S. D. 28, 80 N. W. 141. The distinction between the necessary allegations in the complaint and in the affidavit is well recognized. In Ladenburg v. Commercial Bank, supra, the language used was broad enough to cover the allegations in the complaint; but in Brown v. Travelers L. & A. I. Co., 21 App. Div. 42, 47 N. Y. S. 253, it was said that the case is "not an authority on the question of pleading."

8 Victor M. & M. Co. v. Justice Court, 18 Nev. 21, 1 Pac. 831. Bogert v. Otto G. E. Works, 28 App. Div. 463, 51 N. Y. S. 118; Foster

v. Electric H. R. Co., 16 Misc. 147, 37 N. Y. S. 1063.

10 Shanks v. Magnolia Metal Co., 89 Hun, 486, 35 N. Y. S. 385; Randolph v. Susquehanna W. P. & P. Co., 12 App. Div. 479, 42 N. Y. S. 411.

defence when sued.11 The defendant must set up any defence based on its own or the plaintiff's status by a plea; thus the fact that it is not a foreign corporation must be pleaded,12 and so must the facts that the plaintiff is a non-resident and the cause of action arose outside the State.13 It cannot be done by demurrer 14 or by motion to dismiss.15 So, if the service was not on an agent authorized to receive it, or the corporation was not doing business in the State, the fact must be set up in defense by a plea to the jurisdiction;16 a writ of prohibition will not lie.17

§ 294. Return of service of process.

The return of service must show on its face that it has been properly served on a person authorized to receive service of process; 18 it is not enough that it recites service on "one of the agents" of the corporation.19 The name of the agent served and the nature of his agency should be named, in order that the court may judge whether the service has been a proper one.20 The citation need not contain the name of the agent to be served,21 though it would be well to insert the name.22

11 Weeks v. Garibaldi S. G. M. Co., 73 Cal. 599.

12 McAllister v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co., 28 Mo. 214; De Maio v. Standard Oil Co., 68 App. Div. 167, 74 N. Y. S. 165; Steele v. R. M. Gilmour Mfg. Co., 77 App. Div. 199, 78 N. Y. S. 1078.

13 Universal L. I. Co. v. Bachus, 51 Md. 28; Maxwell v. Speed, 60 Mich. 36, 26 N. W. 824; Gurney v. Grand Trunk Ry., 59 Hun, 625, 13 N. Y. S. 645. 14 Universal L. I. Co. v. Bachus, supra; Gurney v. Grand Trunk Ry., supra. 15 Maxwell v. Speed, supra; Delaware, L. & W. R. R. v. New York, S. & W. R. R., 12 Misc. 230, 33 N. Y. S. 1081.

16 Benwood Ironworks v. Hutchinson, 101 Pa. 359.

17 State v. District Court, 26 Minn. 233.

18 St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350, 27 L. ed. 222; Adkins v. Globe F. I. Co., 45 W. Va. 384, 32 S. E. 194.

19 Gates v. Tusten, 89 Mo. 13 (semble).

20 Northern Cent. Ry. v. Rider, 45 Md. 24; Continental Ins. Co. v. Mans

field, 45 Miss. 311; Liblong v. Kansas F. I. Co., 82 Pa. 413.

21 Railway v. Wise, 3 Wills. Civ. App. (Tex.) 386; Frick Co. v. Wright,

23 Tex. Civ. App. 340, 55 S. W. 608.

22 Continental Ins. Co. v. Mansfield, 45 Miss. 311.