poration, who has been sent into the State to negotiate with the plaintiff for a settlement of the controversy, is sufficient; although the company has never done any other business within the jurisdiction.15 The holding of directors' meetings is an element to be considered in determining whether a corporation is found within the State,16 so is the transfer of stock.17 It has been held that the following acts do not amount to a transaction of business within the State, which will subject a foreign corporation to the jurisdiction of the courts, State or Federal, there held: The residence of three directors of the corporation and its assistant secretary, who, at various times, received and gave information indirectly affecting the business of the corporation elsewhere.18 The residence of the officers or directors served, and a by-law providing that the directors may meet within the district once a month, where there is no proof of a compliance with such by-law.19 The maintenance of an office for the registration of transfers of stock, the meeting of the directors at the office of one of them, and the maintenance of a bank account, where it was not shown what business had been transacted at such meetings, nor how recently before the attempted service such meeting had been held.20 The presence of the principal officers of a corporation when they have with them property of the corporation merely for

15 Brush Creek Coal & Min. Co. v. Morgan-Gardner El. Co., 136 Fed. 505 (W. D. Mo.); Geo. Wm. Bentley Co. v. Chivers & Son, Ltd., 215 Fed. 959. See Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Spratley, 172 U. S. 602, 43 L. ed. 569; where, however, the company was transacting business within the State. Smithson v. Roneo, Ltd., 231 Fed. 350. Contra, Louden Machinery Co. v. Am. Malleable Iron Co., 127 Fed. 1008 (S. D. Ia.); Craig v. Welch Motor Car Co., 165 Fed. 554; Union Water Development Co. v. Stevenson, 256 Fed. 981; Buffalo Sandstone Brick Co. v. American Sandstone Brick Machinery Co., 141 Fed. 211 (W. D. Fed. Prac. Vol. I-60

N. Y.); Wilkins v. Queen City Savings Bank & Trust Co., 154 Fed. 173 (S. D. N. Y.); Hoyt v. Ogden Portland Cement Co., 185 Fed. 889 (N. D. N. Y.); where service upon the president was said to be insufficient. 16 Sleicher v. Pullman Co., 170 Fed. 365.

17 Ibid., Westinghouse A. B. Co. v. Great N. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 88 Fed. 258.

18 Earle v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 127 Fed. 235.

19 Conley V. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U. S. 406, 408, 411, 47 L. ed. 1113, 1114, 1115.

20 Honeyman v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., 133 Fed. 96.

the purpose of exhibition.21 The attendance of the secretary of the corporation upon the taking of depositions, in a suit to which his company is a party.22 The transaction of business by another company of which it owns practically the entire stock.23 The lease by a foreign to a domestic corporation of personal property, and the payment by the latter to the former of a part of the profits derived from the use of such property within the jurisdiction of the court.24 The acceptance of a lease by a railroad within a State, where the terms of the lease did not appear.25 The negotiation of loans upon a mortgage, and a successful application to have the bonds thereby secured listed on the stock exchange.26 The previous payment of coupons.27 A single act of business, such as the making of a contract there for the sale of an article to be manufactured elsewhere and there delivered, when there was no purpose to do any other business or to have a place of business within the district.28 The maintenance of an office with an agent merely for the solicitation of business and without authority to make contracts 29 although samples are shown in such

22 Ladd Metals Co. v. American Mining Co., 152 Fed. 1008.

23 Peterson v. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co., 205 U. S. 364, 51 L. ed. 841; Phila. & R. Ry. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U. S. 264, 268, 37 Sup. Ct. 280; Peoples Tobacco Co. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 246 U. S. 79, 87. 24 U. S. v. Am. B. Tel. Co., 29 Fed. 17.

25 Green v. Chicago B. & Q. Ry. Co., 147 Fed. 767.

26 Clews v. Woodstock Iron Co., 44 Fed. 31.

27 Toledo Rys. & Light Co. v. Hill, 244 U. S. 48.

28 Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson,

113 U. S. 727, 735, 28 L. ed. 1137, 1139; Good Hope Co. v. Railway B. F. Co., 22 Fed. 635; Maxwell v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 34 Fed. 286; Frawley v. Pennsylvania Cas. Co., 124 Fed. 259. Cf. Doe v. Springfield B. Co., C. C. A., 104 Fed. 684; Eirich v. Donnelly C. Co., C. C. A., 105 Fed. 1.

29 Green v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 205 U. S. 530, 51 L. ed. 916; People's Tobacco Co. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 246 U. S. 79, 87; Denver & Rio Grande R. Co. v. Roller Co., C. C. A., 49 L.R.A. 77, 100 Fed. 738; Weller v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 113 Fed. 502; Earle v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 127 Fed. 235; Buffalo Glass Co. v. Manufacturers' Glass Co., 142 Fed. 273; McGuire v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 155 Fed. 230; West v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 170 Fed. 349; Hefner v. Am. Tube & Stamping Co., 163 Fed. 866;

office 30 and repairs there made.31 The maintenance of a purchasing office when the purchases must be approved at the home office.32 The transportation of its freight cars moved by another carrier who allows it a proportionate share of the freight.33 The insertion of its name and number in a telephone directory.34 The collection of news paid for by the item.34a Advertise

Where the business within the State has ceased, and there is no official appointment of an agent for the service of process outstanding unrevoked, service upon a former agent is insufficient.35 Service upon an agent is insufficient unless he represents the defendant in the transaction of business within the State or district.36 Service upon the president,37 secretary,88 or other prin

cipal officers 39 of a foreign corporation within the State, is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court, unless the corporation is found there or waives the objection.

A surety company may be served in any district where it is found in a suit upon a bond or undertaking given in such district under the statutes of the United States.40 Service upon

a surety company is made upon its agent in the district appointed by it for that purpose or in his absence, or, in case there is no such appointment, by service upon the clerk of the court where the suit is brought.41 Such service must be personal,42

Service of process in the manner prescribed by the State practice may subject a foreign corporation to the jurisdiction. of the Federal court, in a case over which the State statutes deprive her courts of jurisdiction because the cause of action arose without the State.43

By stipulation in the suit, a corporation may be estopped from objecting that a person upon whom service was made was not authorized to represent it.44

The return of a sheriff or marshal as to service upon a foreign corporation is presumed to be correct.45 The marshal's return may be amended.46 It has been held that after removal the sheriff's return cannot,47 but that its defects may be cured by affidavit.48 The return may be contradicted.49

§ 165. Substituted service of a subpoena. Independently of an express statutory authority, there is no power in a court

& Trading Co., C. C. A., 199 Fed. 561. But see Phila. & R. Ry. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U. S. 264, 269.

45 Nickerson v. Warren City Tank & Boiler Co., 223 Fed. 843.

46 Fountain v. Detroit M. & T. S. L. Ry. Co., 210 Fed. 982.

47 Boultbee v. International Paper Co., C. C. A., 22a Fed. 951.

48 Gen. Inv. Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 250 Fed. 16.

49 U. S. v. Southern Bridging Co., 251 Fed. 400.

of equity to order actual personal service to be effected upon a defendant beyond its territorial jurisdiction; 1 but, in a few cases, such courts have for more than a century assumed the power of ordering service to be made within their jurisdiction upon some person for the absent defendant, and have treated. such service as valid. In suits to stay proceedings at law in the same court, the service of a subpoena upon the attorney of the plaintiff at law may be allowed, and it will then bind the latter if he be beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It has been held that this cannot be done after the judgment at law has been enforced, since the attorney's authority to represent his client is then terminated. Nor where an injunction is also asked against a non-resident, who is not a party to the suit a stay of which is prayed; unless he is in privity with one of the original defendants, in which case it was held, that service might be made upon him in another district.

A similar practice would in all probability be allowed in serving process under bills not original; namely, bills of revivor, supplemental bills, and bills of revivor and supplement, which are nothing more than continuations of the suits upon which they operate, unless they bring in new parties not the personal representatives of one who has died pending the suit. A defendant who is charged by a supplemental bill with estoppel by the decree because he controlled the defense cannot thus be

7

§ 165. 1 This passage was quoted and approved by Maxey, J., in Batt v. Proctor, 45 Fed. 515, 516.

2 Hales v. Sutton, 1 Dickens, 26; S. C., sub. nom. Hallett v. Sutton, 12 Simons, 145, note; Carter v. De Brune, 1 Dickens, 39; Hyde v. Forster, 1 Dickens, 102; Lady Carrington v. Cantillon, Bunb. 107; Hobhouse v. Courtney, 12 Simons, 140, and cases there cited; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am, ed.) 502-508.

3 Dunn v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 1, 8 L. ed. 845; Hitner v. Suckley, 2 Wash. 465; Eckert v. Bauert, 4 Wash. 370; Ward v. Seabry, 4 Wash. 426; Read v. Consequa, 4 Wash. 174; Bartlett v. Sultan of Turkey, 19 Fed. 346.

See also Logan v. Patrick, 5 Cranch, 288, 3 L. ed. 103; Dunlap v. Stetson, 4 Mason, 349.

4 Kamms v. Stark, Sawyer, 547. 5 Manning v. Berdan, 132 Fed. 382.

6 O'Connor v. O'Connor, 146 Fed. 994.

7 Norton v. Hepworth, 1 H. & T. 158; Dunn v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 1, 8 L. ed. 845, p. 449a. But see Henderson v. Meggs, 2 Brown Ch. C. 127; Anderson v. Lewis, 3 Brown Ch. C. 429; Gardiner v. Mason, 4 Brown Ch. C. 478. This passage was quoted with approval by Morrow, J., in Shainwald v. Davids, 69 Fed. 701, 703.