Case Name: The People ex. rel. The Glenn's Falls Ins Co. vs. The Judge of the Jackson Circuit
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1870-10
Citations: 1 Mich. N.P. R. lxxxviii
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex. rel. The Glenn’s Falls Ins Co. vs. The Judge of the Jackson Circuit.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Michigan Nisi Prius Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: lxxxviii–lxxxix

Head Matter:
The People ex. rel. The Glenn’s Falls Ins Co. vs. The Judge of the Jackson Circuit.
A corporation organi-ed under tbo laws of another State, doing business in ibis State, may be sued in our Courts, and application by the defendant in such case, to remove the cause to the U S. i ourts was paoperly denied.
Error to Jackson Circuit.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Campbell,'C. J.
This was an order upon the Circuit Judge to show cause why a mandamus should not issue directing him to remove a cause to the United States Court, the relator being defendant, and a corporation existing under the laws of New York and the plaintiff being a citizen of Michigan*
The validity of the statute providing for the removal of cases to the United States courts is undoubted. And it was held in Yackey vs. Richardson, 9 Mich., 529, that in cases to which it plied it was a matter of right and not within the discretion x>f the State couits. If this were the case of a citizen of another State, having the full rights of an individual and subject to no disabilities, there would be no doubt of the propriety/ of the removal. '
It is settled that a corporation created in one State has no right to do any act in another except by the express or implied assent of the latter. And it has been held that such assent may be conditional. The State of Michigan has enacted that ho for* eign insurance company shall transact business in this State without first appointing an agent or attorney in this State on whom process of law can be served, which process shall issue from the courts of this State, and such courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases arising nnder this act. The submitting themselves to the exclusive jurisdiction of our courts is one of the conditions of the corporate action of these insurance companies in Michigan. The Circuit Court could not therefore properly compel a party who had sued them when they had covenanted he might sue them, to go into another jurisdiction.
Held, also, that if any coercive action should be deemed necessary in a cáse of this kind-, it should come from the United States courts and not from those of the State.
Mandamus denied.