umirso srsrss v. Anizmcsu num. r1z1.1—:r>uoNa co. 31
in each district of the state; nor that the sale of licenses to use its
patents, or the renting of its telephone instruments, is done by the
American Bell Telephone Company through or by means of the local
corporations as its agents. The only sale or grant of licenses to use
said patents, and the only renting or lease of telephone instruments
set forth in the bill, are made to thc local corporations. They cer-
tainly do not,-as the oiiicers and agents of the American Bell Tele-
phone Company, sell licenses or rent telephone instruments to them-
selves. This would be a manifest absurdity. It will be proper,
therefore, in considering the question as to the sufficiency or validity
of the service, to treat the bill as charging that the American Bell l
Telephone Company is carrying on business in Ohio, both as copart·
ner for the local corporations, and separately for itself, by the cem-
ployment of agents, officers, and servants of its own, in the selling and
granting of licenses to use its patents, in the renting or leasing of its
telephone instruments, and in the ownership of stock in the local
corporations, or otherwise. Reading the returns in the light of these
jurisdictional averments of the bill, do the recitals therein contained, "
that each of the local corporations on whosechief oliicer service was
made was "the partner and agent" of the American Bell Telephone
Company, constitute, "prlmafacie," a legal and valid service on the
latter? It is clear that if the statements made in the returns, that
the local corporations served were "the partners and agents" of the
American Bell Telephone Company, are to be construed as meaning
that the latter companies were "agents," by reason of the copartner-
ship relation charged in the bill, the service would not be sutllcient
to bring the American Bell Telephone Company, as a non-resident
corporation and partner, personally before the court. The bill claims
that the alleged copartnership embraces, not the patents sought to be
canceled and annulled, but only the business of telephony transacted
in Ohio. A The local companies, as the copartners of the Bell Tele- ‘
phone Company in carrying onthe business of telephony in this state,
if that relation can legally exist between such corporations, would be
the agents and representatives of the latter as to the copartnership
transactions and aifairs, but not further or otherwise, in the absence
of express arrangement, which is not alleged. In respect to that co-
· partnership business, the interest therein of the non-resident partner
may be subject to the local jurisdiction, if the copartnership is prop-
erly served with a process in conformity with the statutes of the state.
It is, however, well settled that the non-resident partner cannot be _
brought personally before even the local courts, or be subjected to
judgment in personam, by service upon the resident partners. This
court certainly could not recognize or act upon any such service, as ‘
against the non-resident. The Ohio statute relating to non-resident
partners provides (Bev. St. § 5011) that "a partnership formed for
the purpose of carrying on a trade or business in this state, or hold-
ing property therein, may sue or be sued by the usual or ordinary