The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-01-12
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
A FOREIGN CORPORATION CAN BE SUED IN =
STATE WHERE 1T HAS NO OFFICE UNDEH
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

A FOREIGN CORPORATION CAN BE SUED IN D.
STATE WHERE 1T HAS NO OFFICE UNDEH
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
PHILADELPHIA, jan II, 1879.
The question whether foreign corporation which
neither has Office ransacts business in Phila-
dciphia be sued here was decided affrmatjyely
to-day by Judge Thayer in the case of Ely vs.. Tho
Northern Pacific Railway Company. In the course
of his decision lie says:-
The corporation has legal existence in Pcnnsyl-
vania as 1t has by virtue of its charter in every one
of the United States. 1t may be foreign in tho
that its charter does not proceed from the const
tuted authority of this State but is not foreign in
any other sense. A corporation chartered by the
United States has legal existence every
where within the United States. Hence it is
provided in their charter that they may and be-
sued lin all courts of law and equity within the
United States. 1t is said that these words add
pany would not have had without them. and this is
probably so for being corporation created by the
United States with the essential qualities belonging
body corporate. they would possess the power Of
suing and being sued everywhere within the limits of
the United States whore could be served upon
their chief officer without the aid of the clause which
expressly confers this faculty upon them.
II the corporation, then. has legal existence in
Pennsylvania, why should IL not be liable to be sued
here if jurisdiction is obtained by service upon tho
proper officer OF the company who lived within the
bounds of our jurisdiction? AZ we lately had
sion to point out in the case of the Lehigh Coal
and Navigation Company The Lehigh Boom
Company. there Is no rule of the common law and
existing within the limits Of the sovereignty from
which IL derives it's powers To- be made at the office
place of business of the company. Under the act
of the 18th of june 1896 urdons Digest, 2sG), "a
vice is good made anywhere in the State within the
jurisdiction the Court from which the writ issued il
made upon of the officers designated by that As
q natural person may be sued anywhere in the State
where the summons can be lawfully served upon
him. a corporation which has legal existence in
Pennsylvania is in like manner liable to be sued any
where in the Commonwealth whore jurisdiction can
be obtained by proper service of the summons. A
corporation has greater privilege in this respect
than q citizen. and IL would be strange il IL had.
1t is not necessary therefore, in the present
call 10 aid the act of 2lst March, 1s49. to
interpret that act and decide the question s,renu-
ousy argued by the learned counsel for the defend
ant. whether that act applies TO foreign corpora
tions which have no Office or place of business in
Pennsylvania. II may well be that the inreprcta-
ton Of the act of 1st9 Is correct interpretations
whether ii is or Is not do not decide The corpo
ration defendant in the present is corpora
ton which has % lawful existence in pcnnsyi-
vana. II is liable to be sued in every part Of tho
sovereignty from which its corporate character il de
rived IL service can be made upon the proper Officer
Here the service made upon the president of tho
corporation. who is the proper officer TO he served
Whether we regard the rule OF the common law tho
express directions of the act OF 1ssl6
reason therefore, why they should not be liable 10
the plaintiffs suit in this jurisdiction. Rulo
to qias n the writ and service discharged