44 t FEDERAL REPORTER. ,_
courts, or the proper service of process upon defendants. Chufee v.
Hayward, 20 How. 208; Saddlery. Hudson, 2 Curt. 6; Ager v. Mar-
ray, 105 U. S. 126; Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U. S. 131; S. C. 5 Sup.
V Ct. Bep. 796. »
The character of the American Bell Telephone Company's incor-
poreal rights or franchises, as the owners of said letters patent, can
in no way affect the questions involved, or determine whether it is
carrying on its business in Ohio by a managing agent or agents, or
whether it has been properly served with process, so as to bring it
‘ personally before the court. B The position that -the American Bell
_Telephone Company is domesticated wherever its telephone instru-
ments are used, even under license, is only restated by counsel for the
government in another form when it is said that the American ,Bell
Telephone Company is “carryingon the business of owning telephones
in Ohio." But it will hardly do to say that the ownership of property
inthe state is the doing of business here, within the meaning and
intent of the law, so as to make th_e owner personally present. It is
undoubtedly true that, in respect to the particular property so owned
and located within its limits, the state has the authority to proceed
` against it "in rem" for the purpose of taxation, or to subject it to the
payment of valid claims and demands against the foreign owner. It
cannot, however, serve to bring the person of such owner within its
» ' jurisdiction, whether that person be a private individual or a patent-
holding corporation. But in the present case the retention of the
title to the telephone instruments, which are leased or rented at Bos-
ton, to be used in Ohio by tl1e local or licensee corporation, with the
reservation of the right to cancel such lease and resume possession in
certain contingencies, is hardly to be considered a present ownership
of the instruments, no default having occurred on the part of the
licensee which would authorize the lessor to terminate the lease. All
that can be said of the lessor’s title, under such circumstances, is that
it is a suspended or deferred ownership, subject to the particular right
and estate of the lessee while the lease is in force. Aside from this,
would any court, state or federal, undertake to assume jurisdiction
over the American Bell Telephone Company personally, by finding a
lotvof its telephone instruments stored in some warehouse, or with a
commission merchant of Cincinnati? Hardly. And yet the presence
of such instruments here would be just as much "the carrying on
the business of owning telephones in Ohio" as the finding of such
instruments in the possession of a lessee. Owning property is one
thingi using such property in connection with business carried on
by the owner, or others to whom he grants the right to use it, is an-
other and quite a different thing. For one person to supply the
means to another to do business with or on is not the doing of that
business by the former. The jurisdiction of this court cannot be sus-
tained on any such proposition as this, and it need not longer be
· dwelt upon.
I