Fire Ins. Co. 5 McLean, 461, and by Judge Woods, in Knote v. Southern Life Ins. Co. 2 Woods, 479.
But, whatever may have been the different decisions upon this question, and the reasons in support thereof, it is not now necessary to discuss, for the law upon the subject bas been recently definitely settled by the supreme court of the United States, in Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369. In that case suit was brought in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, by a citizen of that district, against a foreign insurance company, and service of process was made upon its agent, who resided within the district. The company was doing business in Pennsylvania, under a license, under a statute which required that the company should file a written stipulation, agreeing that process issued in any suit brought in any court of that commonwealth having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and served upon the agent specified by the company to receive service of process for it, should have the same effect as if personally served upon the company within the state.
The provisions of this statute are substantially those of the state of Ohio, supra. In that case Mr. Chief Justice Waite, after citing, in support of the jurisdiction, Railroad Company v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65; Railway Company v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; Lafayette Insurance Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; and Ex parte McNeill, 13 Wall. 236, says:
“A corporation cannot change its residence or its citizenship. It can have its legal home only at the place where it is located, by or under the authority of its charter; but it may, by its agents, transact business anywhere, unless prohibited by its charter, or excluded by local laws. Under such circumstances it seems clear that it may, for the purposes of securing business, consent to be ‘found’ away from home, for the purposes of suit growing out of its transactions. The act of congress prescribing the place where the person may be sued is not one affecting the general jurisdiction of the courts. It is rather in the nature of a personal exemption in favor of a defendant, and it is one which he may waive. If the
