The Iowa transcript. (Toledo, Tama County, Iowa) 1858-1866, 1866-03-07

he owner Of our interest in real estate
as lessees Of the G. & N. and 9. 4
NJ r r. Il. Go. in this State, it i
estopped from denying that it has sucl
an existence as will alone sustain any
title to the property &c right. it claims
i In the case Of the lafayette Ins. co
rs French ct. al the facts were tha
Plaintiff being a corporation Of ,ht
State Of Indiana had an office for tht
transaction Of business as insurers II
the State Of Ohio Trio corporation
was sued by citizen Of Ohio in one O
the State courts Of that State, and re
covered Judgment by default, and npo,
suit brought in tie Circuit Court Of tn,
/ United States for Indiana npan iIii
Judgment. 1t was objected to the intro
,Iuc,ion of the Judgment on the groun,
that the record Of the same did no
show the service of process upon th'
Defendant as required by law, nor thu
appearance OF the Defendant by Attor
ney or otherwise in said writ in which
Judgment was rendered IN the Ohio
Court, an that said Judgment is there
fore void Hence the only question
really established in this case, is, that a
foreign corporation may be sued in he
! State Courts of a State other than the
State in which it Tas originally created
provided its existence has been recog
nizel. expressly or implicitly by such
other S ale. AMI such suit authorized
| by the laws Of such other State, AMI
further that such laws are not nncon.
s,itn'ional Or contrary to the policy OF
the general public law.
The opinion farthc: holds this Ian
gUage.
az corparai,n created in Indiana
cantransact business inOaio only with
the consent expressed or implied Of
the latter State. Is Peters $40. This
consent may be accompanied BY such
condit,f rs as Ohio my think tit Ia
impose: and these conditions must
be de, med valid and eticctual by
other States, am! by this Court. pro
vided they are not rcpugnant TO ,he
constitution or laws 1T the L. ) oi
inconsistent with the rules of publ,
law &c."
The laws Of OHIO in this case authoriz
inc service of sail Ins ca. there wa,
held valid and to confer jurisdiction
Bu. the counsel f,r d ,tcatitnt III ihi,
case argnes that hal lie ms. Co. ap
pcared and claimed its right to iria
! in the X ) Courts, il con,i no, have
been succe, ,sfui;y resis s.ea.
On this point the npinion holds thi,
! lauynarr 1--WE cnnS,tlnr this fprpi N
Q ,rpora,:ol catering INTO contracts
IN ate and to be performed in Ohio, wa.
nnlrr an obligation to attend. by is
daily authorized attorney, on tie Courts
Of that S,a.e, in suits founded on snch
contracts, whereof notice should be
given BY lne process Of law, served on
the Ayen, of the corporation residcn,
in Ohio. AMI qualified by the law OF
Ohio and the presumed assent of the
cnrpoaation to receive an1 act on such
notice: tina, this obligation is well
founded in pclicy AMI morals and no,
Inconsistent with any principle Of public
law; AMI that when so sued on such
contracts in Ohio. the corporation va
personally onaennble 10 that jurisdiction;
and We hold such A Judgment recovered
after such notice to be "a valid AS il the
corporation had had its haLi'al within
the State"
The whole spirit Of the opinion is, 10
my mind, against tho idea cnnicnded
for by Defendant, bu. the opinion does
not decide the question tor it was no,
raised
However, it NAV be conceded with
on, cffec:ing this case, that had Drfen
dant in that case appeared in the Ohio
court that it would have been entitled
to transfer Of its suit to the United
States Courts f,r the facts of the two
cases are materially and RADICAL.
different.
A foreign Insurance Co. seldom owns
any property, except perhaps an efii'e
out of the State ot lis creation; where
as in this case the Defendants have s
lease for a term 81 years Of long hnt
ot important rail way IN this State, arG
have consented TO take such lease bur
lcnea with all the responsibility ant
liability Of owners, AMI in the sam
manaer as owners. They could not b,
owners o. |essees withou, snch rccog
ni,on as gives them habitas in thi
Stat, in every re>pec. equal TO th'
legal existence Of the Onio & NJ. r. r
Co. in Ohio and Indiana ID M
think the recognition need be EXPIRE -
hu, may he an implied enc, and sacl
III implied one i certainly given b.
See. 1, Chapter S6, laws 1861.
| Counsel for Defendants argues tha
a. The Defendants had leased Ties
roads prior .o.,he passage ofth abov
mentioned act, that j, cannot 'mpai
rights already acquired A sniilcien
answer to this is, that until the passag
81 that aot II had no rights in this Stat
according 70 the doctrine established
hy the Supreme Court, in the case =
Lafayete Ins. Co VS. French ct. ais. L
Howard 4o4 and was operating tn
roads III this State by sut!erance, an'
rs an invisible. intangible nonensity.
Ba; suppose ihe Statute referred 4
! does not recognise he defendant II
such manner as to give legal EMIT,
or htlIal in this State, and that u !