The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919. Page: 50
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
PV , 256 FEID,;RL BBPORTER . ,
injured, or that said contract was made !A this state., -Except as to the
matters above stated and those naturaly connecte therewith, John-
son was not, as between him and the, defendant, authorized to repre-
sent it, and he had no express authority from it to receive service
Two questions are presented:
(1) Was the defendant corporation within this jurisdiction so as to
be subject to suit here?
(2) Was the summons served upon its authorized agent?
See St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Alexander, -227 U. S. 218, 226, 33
Sup. Ct. 245, 57 L. Ed. 486, Ann, Cas. 1915B, 77; Connecticut Mu-
tual Life Insurance Co. v. Spratley, 172 U. S. 602, 610, 19 Sup. Ct.
308, 43 L. Ed. 569.
 As to' the first question: As the jurisdictional requirements
for federal courts cannot be affected by state statutes, this question
is to be determined upon the federal statutes and decisions. Mechan-
ical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, 215 U. S. 437, 30 Sup. Ct. 125, 54
L. Ed. 272. Jurisdiction, as to the points under discussion, depends
on the presence of the defendant within the territorial limits of the
court's power. In cases of corporations, it was at first held that they
were so present only in the state where they were organized; but this
view no longer prevails, and they are now held to be present wherever
they are sufficiently engaged in business and are represented by an
agent competent to receive service of process upon them. St. Clair
v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350, 1 Sup. Ct. 354, 27 L. Ed. 222; Riverside Mills
v. Menefee, 237 U. S. 189, 35 Sup. Ct. 579, 59 L. Ed. 910.
How far it is necessary that a foreign corporation should engage in
business in a given district or state, in order to be subject, generally,
to the jurisdiction of the courts there, is somewhat uncertain. The
Supreme Court has expressly declined to establish any general rule
and has said that every case must turn upon its own facts. In a gen-
eral way it may be said that the-
'"business must be such in character and extent as to warrant the inference
Ihut the corporation has subjected itself to the jurisdiction and laws of the
district in which it is served and in which it is bound to appear when a proper
agent has been served with proce.s." UI)., J., St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v.
See, too, Washington Virginia Ry. Co. v. Real Estate Trust Co.,
238 U. S. 185, 186, 35 Sup. Ct. 818, 59 L. Ed. 1262.
It has been held that a corporation which did any business whatever
in a district or state had submitted itself generally to that jurisdiction
(Beale on Foreign Corporations [1st Ed.] 280, collecting authori-
ties); but the better opinion seems to be that there is necessarily some
relationship between the extent of business done and the extent of
jurisdiction acquired, and I think that this is the view on which
the decision in St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Alexander, supra, proceeds.
See, too, Boultbee, Adm'x, v. International Paper Co. (C. C. A. 1st
Cir., Feb. 10, 1916), 229 Fed. 951, 144 C. C. A. 233. It is, however,
cleati that jurisdiction is not limited to business done by the corpora
.tionwithin the district or state; the liability to suit depends not upon
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919., legislative document, 1919; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38827/m1/64/: accessed January 24, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.