36 FEDERAL Rsroirrms.
count, and through or by means of its own agents, officers, or repre-
sentatives, in order to bring it within the operation of the laws of a
state other than that in which it is incorporated, making it amenable
to suit there as a condition of its doing business in such state.
Under the authorities and principles stated, the American Bell Tel-
` ephone Company, as ia Massachusetts corporation, can only be found
· and be liable to suit within the territorial limits of this court, within
the meaning of the federal law or judiciary acts, by virtue of the laws
of Ohio relating to it or foreign corporations generally doing business
in the state. Except as to insurance companies, the statutes of Ohio
· impose no express terms or conditions upon foreign corporations com-
ing into the state, and exercising their corporate functions. By a
long-standing and well-recognized comity, all foreign corporations,
other than insurance companies, are allowed to carry on their corpo·
rate business, and exercise their franchises, here without being re-
quired to designate an officer or agent on whom service of process
‘ ‘ shall be made, or to give any express consent to be found or sued
here. The Civil Code of Procedure of the state provides, (Bev. St.
§ 5044 :) "A summons against a corporation may be served upon the
president, mayor, chairman, -or president of the board of directors or
trustees, or other chief officer; or, if its chief officer be not found in
the county, upon its cashier, treasurer, secretary, clerk, or managing
agent," etc. ; omitting the special provisions about foreign insurance
companies. Section 5046 provides: "When the defendant is a for-
eign corporation, havi_ng a managing agent in this state, the service
[of process] may be upon such agent." This section, in order to
bring it within the just limits of the state’s power and jurisdiction,
must necessarily be construed as embracing or including within its
operation only such foreign corporations as carry on business in the
state. It cannot possibly have any extraterritorial effect, so as to
bring within its operation, and bind or give jurisdiction over, a for-
eign corporation, tn personam, which was not carrying on business
within its limits, even though itmight have a "managing agent" re-
siding in the state. The true meaning and construction or proper
limitation of this foreign corporation statute must therefore be that
* suit may be instituted against a foreign corporation doing business in
the state by the service of process on its "managing agent." The
» foreign corporation, to come within the operation of the statute, must
carry on its own business and have a "managing agent" in the state.
This was the construction placed by the supreme court upon a similar
statute of Michigan in St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 357; S. C. 1 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 354; Mr. Justice Finnn, in stating the opinion of the court,
· saying:
" We do not, however, understand the law as authorizing the service of a
copy of the writ, as a summons, upon an agent of a foreign corporation, un-
less the corporation be engaged in business in the state, and the agent be ap-