34 rnnsmn Rsronrim. _
plea and exhibits thereto to be true, the American Bell Telephone
_ Gwlpenyjwas carrying on business in the state of Ohio at the com-_
A mémoement of this suit, and at the date of the alleged service of the•
¤11bp0enas—herein; and, if so, whether all or any ofthe local corpora-i
tions More itsagent or- agents, upon whom service of process could
properly be made, so as to bring-said American Bell Telephone Com-
plpny personally before the court, or compel it to appear and defend
t e suit. ,   A
Theseare mainly questions of fact, but in their consideration the
distinguished counsel for the government and the»Bell Telephone
Company have, in able and elaborate arguments, discussed the gen-
eral subject of suits against foreign corporations, and the present state
of the law in relation thereto,
Eorthe. complainants it is insisted that under the judiciary acts
j (Bev. rSt.—§ 739) and th0·act of March 3, 1875, a corporation is to be
found and is amenable to s,uit3wherever it is doing business, inde-
pendently of the existence of any local law providing for suits against
it.; that the mere fact of carrying on its business in a state other
than that of its creation will enable it to be found there, irrespect-
ive of any law or statute of such state authorizing suit against
it, or against foreign corporations generally, by service upon their
agent. No case yet decided by thesupreme court, either directly or,
o in principle, sustains this broad proposition. The supreme court has
not yet gone to the extent of holding that a corporation can be found,
under the judiciary acts, for personal suit, beyond the limits of the
state creating or adopting it co nomtne, irrespective of the local law.
In every decision of the supreme court asserting or maintaining the
jurisdiction of either the federalor state courts over corporations
created or located outside of the territorial limits of the state or dis-
trict in which suit was brought against them, commencing with La-
fayette Ins. ,Oo;`v. French, 18 How. 404, which made the first ex-
ception to the rule of the common law that a corporation could not
migrate, had no legal existence, and could not be found, for the pur-
pose of suit, beyond the limits of the sovereignty creating it, there
has existed a local statute expressly or impliedly providing for or
authorizing such suit as_ a condition of the corporations doing busi-
ness therein, together with the further fact that the foreign corpora-
tion actuallycarried on its business, or some substantial part thereof,
in such state by and through the instrumentality of agents appointed
by itself. Except where the law of the state inwhich it carries on
business and is sued imposes,,expressly or by implication, a liability
to suit there as a condition of its doing business in the state, a for-
eign corporation cannot jbe found, for the purpose of a suit in per-
sonam, outside of the jurisdiction or sovereignty creating it.
Without undertaking to review the authorities on the subject of a ‘
corporation’s liability to suit in a state or district other than that of
its creation, we-think the decisions of the supreme court have settled