cedure in actions against foreign corporations, their officers or agents, does not apply to causes arising outside the S ate. (Grover v. American Express Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 386) This section applies to suits for relief against inter fering patents. (Liggett etc. Co. v. Miller, 1 Fed. Rep. 203; 1 McCrary, 31.) It inhibits the suing of any person in any other district than the district in which he resides. (Lovejoy v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 64.) The provisions of this section are applicable to patent suits. (Chaffe v. Hayward, 20 How. 208; Allen v. Blunt, 1 Blatchf. 480; Day v. Newark Manf. Co., 1 Blatchf. 628.) A bill to obtain relief against a judgment is deemed an uxiliary suit, and the subpoena may be serve l in another district (Logan v. Patrick, 5 Cranch, 288; Dunlap v. Stetson, 4 Mason, 349); and if plaintiff is non-resident, it may be served on plaintiff's attorney. (Dunn v. Clarke, 8 l'eters, 1; Seegee v. Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11; Hitner v. Suckley, 2 Wash. C. C. 465; Read v. Consequa, 4 Wash. 171; Eckert v. Bauert, 4 Wash. C. C. 370; Ward v. Seabry, 4 Wash. 426. See additional notes, p. 898.)

Territorial limit of jurisdiction.-A court created within and for a particular Territory is bounded in the exercise of its power by the limits of such Territory. (Piquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35; Ex parte Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. 456.) Whatever may be the extent of the jurisdiction over the subject-matter in a suit in respect to jurisdiction over persons and property, it can only be exercised wi hin the limits of the judicial district. (Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35.) The circuit court has jurisdiction only over the inhabitants of the district, or persons "found" therein, and served with process. (Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 422; Anderson v. Shaffer, 10 Fed. Rep. 266.) Where a citizen of New Hampshire and a citizen of Georgia sued a citizen of Massachusetts in New York, where he was arrested, the court had no jurisdiction. (Moffat v. Soley, 2 Paine, 103.) Where there are two districts in a State, a citizen of such State is liable to suit in either district, if served with process. (McMicken v. Webb, 11 Peters, 25; Vore v. owler, 2 Bond, 294; Locomotive Co. v. Erie R. Co. 10 Elatchf. 234.)

Jurisdiction, how acquired.—A Federal court acquires jurisdiction over parties only by a service of process or by their voluntary appearance (Herndon v. Ridgway, 17 How. 424), and only by service of process within te district (Allen v. Blunt, 1 B'atchf. 480; Union Sugar Refi. v. Matthiessen, 2 Cliff. 304), and not then if he is but temporarily within the district. (Smith v. Tuttle; 5 Biɛs. 159.) A person who comes within the district merely for the purpose of attending a trial in a State court cannot be served with process issuing out of a United States court (Juneau Bank v. McSpedan, 5 Biss. 64); and if served with summons while attending the trial of a cause in the circuit court as a party, the service will be set aside. (Parker v. Hotchkiss, 1 Wall. Jr. 267; contra, Blight v. Fisher, Peters C. C. 41.) Where defendant, not an inhabitant of the district, is inveigled or enticed into the district by false representations or deceptive contrivances, service of process on him within the district is illegal. (Steiger v. Bonn, 4 Fed. Rep. 17; Union Sugar Refi. v. Matthiessen, 2 Cliff. 304.) If a non-resident comes into the district for the purpose of pleading to an indictment and giving bail, he cannot be sued before he has a reasonable time to depart. (U. S. v. Bridgman, 8 Am. I aw Rec. 541.) If defendant is a non-resident of the district, the record must show with certainty that process was served upon him within the district. (Allen v. Blurt, 1 Blatchf. 480; Vore v. Fowler, 2 Bond, 294; McC.or key v. Cobb, 2 Bond, 16; Thayer v. Wales, 5 kish. 448. See additional notes, p. 898.)

Waiver of irregularities.—A Federal court has no authority to issue process to another district. (Herndon v. Ridgway, 17 How. 424.) So the process of a circuit court cannot be served without the district in which it is established except by special authority of law. (Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Ex parte Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. 456; Wilson v. Graham, 4 Wash. C. C. 53.) In proceedings for relief against an interfering patent under section four thousand nine hundred and eighteen, Revised Statutes, no provision is made for service of notice on parties outside of the district. (Liggett v. Miller, 1 Fed. Rep. 203; 1 McCrary, 31.) No judgment can be rendered

V.

against a defendant who has not been served with process in the manner pointed out, unless the defendant waivas the necessary process by entering his appearance. (Levy Fitzpatrick, 15 l'eters, 1C7.) A party defendant may plead service of process on him out of the district by plea in abaten ent of the suit. (Van Antwerp v. Hulburd, 7 Batchf. 426.) Where a defendant appears without taking exceptions, it is an admission of the regularity of the service (Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699); but if he appears and answers the bill, he cannot on the hearing o ject that the bill contained a prayer for process, or that he was not served. (Segee v. Thomas, 3 Blatclif. 11.) And if he appears and pleads on the merits, it is a waiver of irregularity. (Toland v. Sprague, 12 l'eters, 300; Po.lard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 422; Irvine v. Lowry, 14 Peters, 293.)

Corporations.—A corporation can have no existence beyond the limits of the State in which it is created; hence service of process upon its officers in another State will not confer jurisdiction upon a circuit court in that State over the corporation. (Northern Ind. R. Co. v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 15 How. 233; Day v. Newmark Manuf. Co. 1 Platchf. 628; Decker v. New York B. & P. Co., 11 Blatchf. 76; Myers v. Dorr, 13 Batchf. 22.) As a corporation cannot be made a party to a civil suit by original process in any other district than the State wherein it was created (Myers v. Dorr, 13 Blatchf. 23), so a national bank c nnot be sued out of the district in which it is locate l (Maine v. Sec nd Nat. Bank, 6 Biss. 26); but a trading corporation may be s ed in any district in which it conducts its business (Hayden v. Androscoggin Mills, 1 Fed. Rep. 93), and a foreign corporation may be sued in a district other than that of which it is a resident, if it has a duly authorized resident agent qualified to acknowledge service of process (Runkle v. Lamar Ins. Co., 2 I ed. Rep. 9; Moch v. V. F. & M. Ins. Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 693); or if it consents that process may be served on its agent in such State, jurisdiction attaches. (Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369; Knott v. Southern L. Ins. Co., 2 Wood 479; Ehrinan v. Tentonia Ins. Co., 1 Fed. Rep. 479; Runkle v. Lamar Ins. Co., 2 Fed. Rep. 9; Fonda v. Tritish

Am. Ins. Co., 10 Chic. L. N. 309; Albright v. Empire Trans. Co., 18 Alb. L. J. 313; contra, Pomeroy v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 4 Blatchf. 120; Southern & A. T. R. Co. v. New Orleans M. & T. R. Co., 2 Cent. L. J. 88; Stillwell v. Empire F. Ins. Co., 4 Cent. L. J. 463.) A foreign corporation doing business within the State is liable to suit by service of process on an agent (Albright v. Empire Trans. Co., 18 Alb. L. J. 313; see Browne I v. T. & B. R. Co., 3 Fed. Rep. 761; 18 Blatchf. 243; Moch v. V. F. & M. Ins. Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 696; 4 Hughes, 61); although there is no State law requiring it to appoint an agent to accept service of process. (Wilson Pack. Co. v. Hun er, 11 Chic. L. N. 207.) Corporations may be found for service of process wherever they are doing busines. (Wilson Packing Co. v. Hunter, 8 Cent. L. J. 333); Rairoad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wa l. 65; Ex parte Schol.enberger, 93 U. S. 369; Moulin v. Ins. Co., I Dutch. 57; Moch v. Ins. Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 696; Wheeling e c. Trans. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 1 Cin. Rep. 311; Hannibal etc. R. Co. v. Crane, 102 Ill. 249; Handy v. Ins. Co., 37 Ohio St. 366; 2 Ohio Law J. 289; McNichol v.U. S. Mercantile Association, 14 Cent. L. J. 51; Williams v. Empire Trans. Co., 14 O. G. 523.)

A personal privilege and may be waived.—This section is not a denial of jurisdiction, but the grant of a privilege to defendant not to be sued out of the State where he resides, unless served with process in the State where suit is brought (Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 489); and under its provisions the privilege granted to him may be waived (Flanders v. Etna 1 is. Co., 3 Mason, 158; see Lovejoy v. Hartford F. Ius. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 63), as by a voluntary appearance (Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 489; Hale v. Contin. Ins. Co., 12 Fed. Rep. 359); and his appearance without process is a waiver of the privilege to object to the non-service of process. (Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699; Seegee v. Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11; Kelsey v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 14 Blatchf. 89; McCloskey v. Cobb, 2 Bond, 16; Flanders v. Ætra Ins. Co. 3 Mason, 158; Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 499; Clarke v. Navigation Co., 1 Story, 531.) S› appearing and moving to dismiss the bill for want of equity

(Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327), or an appearance unac companied by a plea claiming the privilege, is a waiver of it. (Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 489.) For an appearance to confer jurisdiction, the party must be a party to the record. (Kentucky S. M. Co. v. Day, 2 S wy. 468.) If a party is a non-resident he may appear in the suit and p'ead his personal privilege (Teese v. Phelps, 1 McAll. 17), and such an appearance is not a waiver (Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 489); but it is not a waiver to appear and plead to the jurisdiction by an attorney. (Commercial Bank v. Slocomb, 14 Peters, 60; Thayer v. Wales, 5 Fish. 448; Decker v. New York B. & P. Co., II Blatchf. 76.) Where a bill was filed in the southern district of Mississippi against four defendants, two of whom appeared for the purpose of moving to dismiss the bill and the other two declined to appear and process was not served on them, the court had no alternative but to dismiss the bill, they being necessary parties. (Herndon v. Ridgway, 17 How. 424.)

Process by attachment.-An attachment against the property of a non-resident cannot be sued out, unless the defendant is first personally served with process. (Ex parte Des Moines R. R. Co., 2 Morr. Trans. 303.) The circuit court has no jurisdiction in attachment suits against a non-resident without the district. (Hollingsworth v. Adams, 2 Dall. 398; Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Chaffee v. Hayward, 20 How. 208; Day v. Newark Manut. Co., 1 Blatchf. 628: Sadler v. Hudson, 2 Curt. 6; Mauldin v. Carl, 3 Hughes, 247; Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35; Richmond v. Dreyfous, 1 Sum. 131.) Process of foreign attachment cannot be properly issued by the circuit court in cases where defendant is domiciled abroad or not found within the district, where it can be served upon him (Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Anderson v. Shaffer, 10 Fed. Rep. 266), and this applies to corporations. (Meyers v. Dorr, 12 Blatchf. 22.) Process of attachment on the effects of a person not an inhabitant cannot be served (Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 424); but if served not only on the property but on the defendant, jurisdiction attaches. (North v. McDonald, 1 Biss. 57.) An a signee appointed by a bankrupt court of another district is within the rule,