32 .FEDERAL mssomsn.
name which it has assumed, or by which it is known." The service
may be made (Rev. St. § 5042) " by leaving a copy at its usual place
of doing business," and the judgment rendered against the partner- `
ship by the iirmname "shall operate only upon the partnership prop-
erty." This statute, being special, must be strictly pursued, in order
to bind either the partnership or its property. Smith v. Hoover,
39 Ohio St. 249. It cannot serve to support the present returns,
which do not conform to its provisions and requirements, or to give
jurisdiction in personam to this court over the American Bell Tele-
phone Company. The authorities clearly establish these proposi-
tions. D’A roy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165; Hall v. Lanning, 91 U. S.
160; Pennoyer v. Nej', 95 U. S. 714; Renaud v. Abbott, 116 U. S.
277; S. C. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1194.
But suits in equity in the federal courts are regulated, not by the
state statutes, but by the judiciary acts, and the rules of equity prac-
tice adopted for and governing said courts. Equity rule 13 provides
"the service of all subpoenas shall be by delivery of a copy thereof,
by the oilicers serving the same, to the defendant personally, or by
leaving a copy thereof at the dwelling-house or usual place of abode
of each defendant, with some adult person who is a member or resi-
dent in the family." The court can acquire jurisdiction over parties
Y in equity suits only by the service of process within the district in com-
pliance with the requirements of this rule, or by their voluntary ap-
. pearance. The requirements of the rule are not complied with by the
returns in question, if the statements therein made as to the relation
of the local corporations to the American Bell Telephone Company
mean nothing more than a partnership agency.
But how stands the question on the assumption that the bill im-
pliedly, if not expressly, charges that the American Bell Telephone
Company is doing business in Ohio other than that carried on by the
local or licensee corporations, as its copartners,-—such as the sale and
grant of licenses to use its patents, the renting or lease of its telephone
instruments, and the employment of officers, agents, and servants in
each district of the state. The ofhcers and agents so employed, or
the "agents" who (as stated in the bill) visit the local companies at
regular periods to collect its share of the pronts arising from the part-
nership business, would be more properly the representatives of the i
American Bell Telephone Company, for the purpose of the service of
process, than the local copartner corporations in whose "rights, prop- °
erty, and business" it had only an interest. But no such service is
shown, although both the subpoenas and the returns recite that the
American Bell Telephone Company is doing business and found here,
not merely as a copartner, but personally. Under such circum-
stances, a return stating that service was made upon an oincer of a
local corporation, with the recital, in parenthesis, that such local com-
pany was "the partner and agent" of the American Bell Telephone
Company, fails to show ainrmatively the facts required to constitute