eral court on the ground of difference of citizenship or nonresidence. In the absence of any provision in the charter, the principal office and the domicile of a railroad company incorporated by Congress are where the meetings of its stockholders and directors are held, and the records thereof with the registry of its stock are kept, and not where the general administrative offices of the heads of its departments are located. Where a State contains more than one Federal judicial district, a corporation of the State is presumed to be a resident and inhabitant of the district in which it has its principal office, as designated in its certificate or articles of incorporation in accordance with the statutory requirements. Where a State is divided into several Federal districts, it seems: that the district of the residence of a domestic corporation is fixed by the State statute,5 and that where jurisdiction depends upon the defendant's residence it cannot be sued in any other district in the state."

The residence of a corporation is usually determined by either the location of its principal place of business or the personal residence of the party whom it has appointed as its attorney-of-fact upon whom service of process may be made. Where a domestic corporation failed to comply with the statute of West Virginia, by filing a power of attorney appointing a private individual with authority to accept service of process

2 Southern Pac. Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202, 207, 36 L. ed. 943, 945.

3 Interstate Com. Com. v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 57 Fed. 948, 955; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 162 U. S. 197, 204, 40 L. ed. 940, 942. It has been held that the Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. was an inhabitant of Dallas County, Texas, where it maintained an office, which it designated as its general office, and where all the acts of the board of directors in New York were subsequently affirmed at a board meeting, the senior vice-president living in the same county. Matter of Dunn, 212 U. S. 374, 388, 53 L. ed. 558, 564.

4 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Vehicle Equipment Co., 155 Fed. 676.

5 Lemon V. Imperial Window Glass Co., 199 Fed. 927; Stimson v. United Wrapping Mach. Co., 156 Fed. 298. See Dulles v. H. D. Crippen Mfg. Co., 156 Fed. 706; Cincinnati H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Orr, 215 Fed. 261. Contra, Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Ferguson, 169 Fed. 888 s. c., C. C. A., 183 Fed. 756; Waterman v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 199 Fed. 667; Guaranty Trust Co. v. McCabe, C. C. A., 217 Fed. 699.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid. See infra, § 164a.
8 Code W. Va., § 2313.

and with other statutory powers, but had complied with another statute appointing the State auditor its attorney to accept such service; it was held to be liable to suit in either of the Federal districts of the State, by attachment and publication, or by serving process upon the State official in that or the other district.9

§ 62. Residence in patent cases. The Judicial Code provides: $48. In suits brought for the infringement of letters. patent the District courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, in law or in equity, in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in any district in which the defendant, whether a person, partnership, or corporation, shall have committed acts of infringement and have a regular and established place of business. If such suit is brought in a district of which the defendant is not an inhabitant, but in which such defendant. has a regular and established place of business, service of process, summons, or subpoena upon the defendant may be made by service upon the agent or agents engaged in conducting such business in the district in which suit is brought."1

In a suit to enjoin the infringement of a patent, the defendant, even if he is an alien,2 may be sued in any district where his infringement occurred, if he has a regularly established place of business there, or else in the district of which he is an inhabitant, but unless he is an alien, not elsewhere.

It has been held that such a suit against an alien may be maintained in any district where he can be served.5

When the suit is brought in the district of which the de

9 Lemon V. Imperial Window Glass Co., 199 Fed. 927.

§ 62. 136 St. at L. 1087.

2 United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Duplessis Independent Shoe Machinery Co., 133 Fed. 930; Smith v. Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co., C. C. A., 203 Fed. 476.

3 Bowers v. Atlantic G. & P. Co., 104 Fed. 887; Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Phila. Pneumatic Tool Co., 118 Fed. 852; U. S. Consol. Seeded Raisin Co. v. Phoenix Raisin, S. & P. Co., 124 Fed. 234. But see

Noonan v. Chester Park Athletic
Club Co., 75 Fed. 334.

4 Feder v. A. B. Fiedler & Sons, 116 Fed. 378; Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Fox Typewriter Co., 158 Fed. 476.

5 Sandusky Foundry & Machine Co., v. De Lavaud, 251 Fed. 631. Smith v. Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co., C. C. A., 203 Fed. 476; Arbetter Felling Mach. Co. v. Lewis Blind Sitch Mach., C. C. A., 230 Fed. 992. Supra, $45.

fendant is not an inhabitant, he must have a regular and established place of business there, at the time when the suit is brought. Whether that was the case at the time of the commission of the acts of infringement there, is immaterial."

The maintenance of "an established place of business" in the district will not give jurisdiction if no act of infringement was there committed.8

It has been held: that a corporation cannot be sued in a district where it has no regular and established place of business, although it has one in another district in the same State, which is the State of its incorporation, and it is charged with an infringement made jointly with other defendants residing in the district where the suit is brought and a claim of damages for conspiracy is joined with the prayer for an injunction and accounting. That where the non-residence of defendant appears in the bill, there must be averments of infringement in the district.10 But that the phrase, “maintains a regular and established place of business," need not be used where that fact appears from the allegations. That a bill against a corporation and its president and general manager, who is so described, is not insufficient when it avers joint acts of infringement within the district and the maintenance of a regular and established place of business by the corporation there, although it is silent as to the individual defendant's habitation and place of business.11

That where the defendant sells the infringing articles at a fixed place within the district and also assembles different parts of the same, there the court has jurisdiction.12 Where the

6 Feder v. A. B. Fiedler & Sons, 116 Fed. 378; Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Fox Typewriter Co., 158 Fed. 476.

7 Underwood Typewriter Co. V. Fox Typewriter Co., 158 Fed. 476.

8 United Autographic Register Co. v. Egry Register Co., 219 Fed. 637; U. S. Envelope Co. v. Transo Paper Co., 229 Fed. 576.

9 Cheatham El. Switching Device Co. v. Transit Development Co., 191 Fed. 727.

10 International Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Fessenden, 131 Fed. 491; National El. Signaling Co. v. Telefunken Wireless Teelgraph Co., 194 Fed. 893.

11 Thomson-Houston El. Co. V. Electrose Mfg. Co., 155 Fed. 543.

12 Am. Stoker Co. v. Underfeed Stoker Co., 182 Fed. 642. See Consol. Rubber Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co., C. C. A., 215 Fed. 106.

defendant sells through mail orders which he receives and makes the collections at his home but keeps his goods in a warehouse from which they are shipped within another district, he has a "regular and established place of business" in the latter and can there be sued for infringement of a patent.13 Proof that the defendant, who has constructed an infringing machine in another State, has assisted in the installation of the same for use by another defendant within the district; is sufficient to support the jurisdiction when it has an established place of business there.14

The complainant has the burden of proof to establish an infringement within the district and the maintenance by the defendant of a regular established place of business there.15 It has been held: that a foreign corporation does not have a "regular and established place of business" in a district where it has a salesagent who keeps an office there at his own expense and takes orders on commission which are filled at the principal office of the company where it also makes the collections.16 Nor where it keeps an office in the district with one stenographer and a salesman in charge who solicits orders which are filled in another district from which collections are made.17 Nor where its goods are sold by a jobber whom it agrees to protect against patent suits although its letter-heads give addresses in different places, including one in the district of the suit, and the man in charge of the jobber's office states that they are the representatives of the company in such district.18

13 Smith v. Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co., C. C. A., 203 Fed. 476.

14 Edison v. Allis-Chalmers Co., 191 Fed. 837.

15 Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Fox Typewriter Co., 181 Fed. 541. For another case of defective proof, see Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 195 Fed. 764. It has been held that proof that the label, New York," was upon infringing articles sold in another State by a corporation with a regular and established place of business in New York, is insufficient to prove that they were manufactured

in New York, Rumford Chemical Works v. Egg Baking Powder Co., 145 Fed. 953. See also the note to Bailey v. Mosher, 11 C. C. A., 304, 313.

16 General El. Co. v. Best El., 220 Fed. 347; United Autographic Register Co. v. Egry Register Co., 219 Fed. 637.

17 Amer. El. Welding Co. v. Lalance Grosjean Mfg. Co., 256 Fed. 34.

18 Stryker Deflector Co., Inc., v. Perrin Mfg. Co., C. C. A., 256 Fed. 656.

The employment of an agent in the district who in the course of his business uses infringing articles, and who has power to make a contract in the district, is immaterial if the defendant has no regular and established place of business there.19 It has been held: that paying an agent to solicit orders to be executed at the office of its domicile, sharing the expenses of the agent, including salary and rent, with another corporation which. employs him, when he merely solicits orders which are executed at the home office, is not the maintenance of a regular and established place of business.20 That proof that salesmen of the defendant exhibited infringing articles within the district and that one of them said that his employer had sold many there, is insufficient to establish the jurisdiction.21

It is necessary to prove and allege a complete act of infringement within the district and not merely a threat or an evident purpose to infringe there.22 The contributory act within the jurisdiction must be proved to have resulted in a complete infringement.23

The provision that service of process may be made upon the agent engaged in conducting the business within the district, is permissive only, and service may be made upon an officer of a corporation who is there found.24

Under the former statute, it was held that a suit to compel the issue of a patent might be brought in any district where valid service could be made upon the defendant.25

When the defendant is a non-resident, the bill must show that it had a regular and established place of business within the district when the infringement occurred.26 An allegation that the defendants "are now doing business" at a designated

19 Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Philadelphia Pneumatic Tool Co., 118 Fed. 852; U. S. Envelope Co. v. Transo Paper Co., 229 Fed. 576.

20 W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co., 236 U. S. 723.

21 Gray v. Grinberg, 147 Fed. 732. See also the note to Bailey V. Mosher, 11 C. C. A. 304, 313.

22 Westinghouse El. Co. v. Stanley El. Co. 116 Fed. 641; Gray v. Grinberg, 147 Fed. 732.

23 Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.

v. Republic Rubber Co., 195 Fed. 768.

24 National El. Signaling Co. v. Telefunken Wireless Telegraph Co., 194 Fed. 893.

25 Lewis Blind Stitch Co. v. Ar better Felling Mach. Co., 181 Fed. 974.

26 Internat. Wireless Tel. Co. v. Fessenden, 131 Fed. 491; Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Fox Typewriter Co., 158 Fed. 476.