Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/30

lO HARVARD LAW REVIEW. establishes a business,^ yet it is only by reason of Its own act in establishing the business and by virtue of the local law which recog- nizes its existence there. The corporation remains a foreign cor- poration, and is subject to the laws of another sovereignty only so far as it has subjected itself to the laws of that country; and the inquiry must always be whether it has in fact subjected itself to those laws to such an extent as to be subject to the jurisdiction of its courts in the action which is brought against it. " It is an elementary principle of jurisprudence," says Mr. Justice Gray, in a recent case in the Supreme Court of the United States,^ " that a court of justice cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of one who has no residence within its territorial jurisdiction, except by actual service within the jurisdiction of notice upon him, or upon some one authorized to accept service in his behalf, or by his waiver by general appearance, or otherwise, of the want of due service. Whatever effect a constructive service may be allowed in the courts of the same government, it cannot be recognized as valid by the courts of any other government." ^ A foreign corporation, therefore, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, except so far as by its acts within the State, or by its consent, or by its acceptance of conditions imposed, it has sub- jected itself to their jurisdiction. It must appear that it has come within the territory, and that its existence is recognized there, or it cannot be sued at all. If it has come for the transaction of certain business, then the agents which represent it in that business may be regarded as representing it for the purpose of being sued with reference to the business so intrusted to them ; but it does not follow that they represent it for all purposes, or that the corporation may be regarded as found there for the purpose of being sued with reference to matters appertaining wholly to business transacted elsewhere. So also if a State require as a condition of a foreign .corporation doing business within its borders that it appoint agents to accept service of process, the presumption is that only such jurisdiction is claimed as is necessary to deal with litigation arising out of the business that is done under this permission. Such a condition has relation to the permission given, and would be uni- . 1 6 Thomp , Corp., § 7998. 2 Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518. 8 D'Avery v. Ketchani, 11 How. 165 ; Knowles v. Gas Light Co., 19 Wall. 58 ; Hall V. Lanning, 91 U. .S. 160 ; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 ; York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15 ; Wilson V, Seligman, 144 U. S. 41.