UNITED sums v. AMERICAN BELL Tannrnoun oo. 37
_ pointed to act there.', We so construe the words, ·agent of such corporation
within the state.’ "
When a foreign corporation carries on its corporate business, or
some substantial part thereof, in this state, by means of an agent or
representative appointed to act here, and having the charge and man-
agement of such business, it implied1y assents to be found and sued
here in the person of such agent. Doing business in a stateimpos-
ing such condition or liability to suit as this Ohio statute is treated
by the authorities as an agreement or consent on the part of the for-
eign corporation to be "found" here, within the meaning of the fed-
eral judiciary acts, for the purpose of suit, and in the mode desig-
nated, if just and reasonable. If, therefore, the American Bell Tele-
phone Company is carrying on its business in Ohio by a resident
"managing agent," or was so doing at the commencement of this
suit, it has voluntarily brought itself within the operation of the Ohio
statute, and may be found here, and service had upon it, in the per-
son of such managing agent. The defendant has urged that such
suits must be connned or limited to causes of action originating in
the state, and coming within the operation of its laws, and have cited
several authorities to that effect. This would perhaps be a very ‘
proper limitation or restriction, but it can hardly be said to be estab- · ·
lished by the decisions. In Railroad Co. v. Horrris, 12 Wall. 65,
the cause of action originated outside of the District of Columbia;
and in Zllohr et Mohr Distilling Oc. v. Insurance Cos., 12 Fed. Rep.
474, 475, Mr. Justice MATTHEWS expresses the opinion that this for-
eign corporation statute of Ohio would cover all actions of a transi-
tory character, wherever they may have originated. But, in the view
we take of the present case, it is not necessary to express any opinion
on this position. l
Now, applying the foregoing propositions and principles to tl1e facts
set up by the plea of abatement, can it be maintained, either that
the American Bell Telephone Company is carrying on its business in
Ohio, or that it has a “managing agent" here on whom service of
process can be made, so as to bring it personally before the court?
The material facts set forth in the plea, and which positively
and directly contradict the statements and recitals of the returns,
are that the American Bell Telephone Company was not carrying on
business in the state of Ohio at the time of the service of the process
herein; that it has no office or place of business in Ohio; that it
had no oiiicer or agent in the state representing it or its business at
the date of said service and return; that neither of the local· cor-
porations on whom the process was served as its "partner and agent"
bore towards it any such relation; that said local companies were in
fact neither its copartners nor its agents, but merely licensees and
lessees of its telephone instruments, with the right to use the same in
certain defined territorial limits; that it is neither a citizen nor resi-
dent of Ohio, nor found within the limits of said state; that its legal