defendant from liability for the particular injuries which are enumerated in the face thereof, to wit: injuries to his body, right leg, right arm, and a scalp wound. The court does not, however, construe it to be a release for the injuries alleged to have been received by him resulting in the impaired mental powers, and in the partial loss of sight in his left eye. These injuries are those for which damages are sought in this action, and the consideration of which will be submitted to you in this charge."

This interpretation of the release was affirmed by the court of appeals, and presents the only question in the case.

Plaintiff in error contends that the release was intended "to be a final settlement of all claims growing out of the accident." The defendant in error contends that it was a settlement only of the particular injuries enumerated.

An instantly occurring objection to the contention of plaintiff in error is that, if the release was a settlement of all claims growing out of the accident, why enumerate the particular injuries? The mere collision of the trains was of no consequence independent of the injuries which resulted, and it was for the injuries satisfaction was to be made, and satisfaction would be measured by the visible injuries, and, because measured by them, they would be enumerated. If the accident alone was settled for, there was a more direct way of accomplishing it.

But let us analyze the release. It commences with the recital of the relation of defendant in error with plaintiff in error, and that he "sustained certain personal injuries in the manner and of the character described, to the best of his knowledge and ability." Then follows this: "Extra east eng. 189 struck caboose of extra east eng. 255, 23 miles east of Eastland, bruising my body, right leg, right arm, and giving me a scalp wound." For the injuries compensation was fixed at $30, with the additional consideration, let us say, in order to fully exhibit the contention of plaintiff in error, of the desire mutually entertained by him and defendant in error (we quote from the release) "to maintain amicable and pleasant relations and avoid all controversy in respect to said matter." Upon the word "matter" plaintiff in error puts its main reliance; indeed, makes it dominant of the meaning of the release. The contention is that it refers to the accident, not to the injuries, the latter serving only to identify the accident which "was the cause of action." This is an attempt to separate the inseparable. The negligence of plaintiff in error caused the accident which resulted in injuries to defendant in error, and consti

tuted his right or cause of action, and was the matter to which the release was addressed; but the extent of the release, whether confined to the injuries enumerated or includes other injuries, depends upon the other words of the release. They are as follows:

"I hereby release and acquit, and by these presents bind myself to indemnify and forever hold harmless, said Texas & Pacific Railway Company from and against all claims, demands, damages, and liabilities of any and every kind or character whatsoever, for or on account of the injuries and damages sustained by me in the manner or upon the occasion aforesaid, and arising or accruing or hereafter arising or accruing any way therefrom."

We may admit that there is some ambiguity in these words. The release is "of all claims of every kind and character whatsoever," arising, not from all injuries and damages sustained, but from "the injuries and damages sustained." That is, the specific or enumerated injuries sustained "in the manner or upon the occasion aforesaid," and the results of those injuries. The words "in the manner and upon the occasion" are a mere tautological identification of the collision and cause of the injuries. They add nothing else whatever to the meaning of the release. This construction gives purpose to the enumeration of the injuries and to all of the provisions of the release. And the rule of construction should not be overlooked that general words in a release are to be limited and restrained to the particular words in the recital. The rule is illustrated by the case of Union P. R. Co. v. Artist, 23 L. R. A. 581, 9 C. C. A. 14, 19 U. S. App. 612, 60 Fed. 365. Artist was an engineer in the employ of the company, and sustained injuries while switching cars. The release passed upon recited that it was "for amounts agreed upon in settlement of claim of Andrew S. Artist against the Union Pacific Railway Company on account of injuries received." The injuries were specified, and the release recited "settlement is in full of all claims and demands of every character," and concluded with a release "of all manner of actions, cause of action, suits, debts, and sums of money, dues, claims, and demands whatsoever, in law or equity." Passing on the effect of the release, Circuit Judge Sanborn, speaking for the court of appeals of the eighth circuit, applied the rule, citing Jackson ex dem. Rosevelt v. Stackhouse, 1 Cow. 122, 126, 13 Am. Dec. 514, and 2 Parsons, Contr. 633, note.

In Lumley v. Wabash R. Co. 22 C. C. A. 60, 43 U. S. App. 476, 76 Fed. 66, the rule was also applied by the circuit court of ap

change; that the defendant had entered into a conspiracy with others to steal and was using such quotations, and prayed an injunction. A subpoena was issued in the usual form, requiring the Hammond Elevator Company to appear and answer the bill, and was afterwards returned by the marshal as served within the northern district of Illinois by delivering a copy of the same "to Albert M. Babb, agent for the Hammond Elevator Company at Peoria," and also "by reading the same to and within the presence and hearing of John L. Dickes, a member of the firm of Battle & Dickes, agents of said company," as well as upon Battle. On the day following the service the elevator company entered a special appearance, and moved the court to set aside the service of the subpoena by the marshal, on the ground that the return was untrue in fact and insufficient in law, and prayed judgment of the court whether it should be compelled to appear or plead to the bill of complaint, because it had not been served with process, and because the defendant was not, at the date of filing the bill, or at any other time, within the state of Illinois; that it is not a resident of such state, but is a Delaware corporation, and its principal place of business is outside the state of Illinois.

This motion of the elevator company was referred to a master to take testimony, and report the same with his conclusions of law. The master filed his report in the circuit court, recommending that the motion of the defendant to quash the service of process be sustained; whereupon counsel for plaintiff stated in open court that he was unable to make any other or different service upon the defendant, and it was ordered that the bill be dismissed as to the Hammond Elevator Company. The bill was also dismissed as to the Western Union Telegraph Company, which had been made a party by an amendment to the original bill. Thereupon appellant appealed to this court upon the same question of jurisdiction, praying that the appeal be allowed and said question be certified, which was done.

Mr. Henry S. Robbins for appellant. Messrs. Lloyd Charles Whitman, Jacob J. Kern, and John A. Brown for appellee.

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court:

The circuit court dismissed this appeal upon the ground that it had never acquired jurisdiction over the Hammond Elevator Company by the service of process upon Albert M. Babb and the members of the firm of Battle & Dickes, because they were not officers of the elevator company which was a Delaware corporation, and had its principal place of business in the state of Indiana.

1. There is, however, a preliminary question in this court; that is, whether we can lawfully entertain this appeal under § 5 of the act of March 3, 1891, which provides that an appeal shall lie directly to this court "in any case in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue; in such cases the question of jurisdiction alone shall be certified to the Supreme Court from the court below for decision." [26 Stat. at L. 827, chap. 517, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 549.]

The proper constuction of this section has been the subject of frequent consideration in this court, and it has been definitely settled that it must be limited to cases where the jurisdiction of the Federal court, as a Federal court, is put in issue, and that questions of jurisdiction applicable to the state courts, as well as to the Federal courts, are not within its scope.

The earliest reported case on this subject is that of the World's Columbian Exposition v. United States, 6 C. C. A. 58, 18 U. S. App. 42, 56 Fed. 654, in which the circuit court, sitting in equity, granted an injunction to prevent the opening of the Exposition grounds on Sunday. On appeal to the circuit court of appeals the chief justice held that as the power of the circuit court to hear the cause was not denied, the appellant contending only that the United States had not made a case cognizable in a court of equity, the jurisdiction of the circuit court was not in issue within the intent and meaning of the act. In Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355, 40 L. ed. 731, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490, it was held, following the prior case, that the question whether the remedy was at law or in equity did not involve the jurisdiction of the Federal court as such, and the case was dismissed. A similar ruling was made in Blythe v. Hinckley, 173 U. S. 501, 43 L. ed. 783, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 497.

The cases were fully reviewed in Louisville Trust Co. v. Knott, 191 U. S. 225, 48 L. ed. 159, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 119, in which the question involved was the respective rights of a receiver appointed by the state court and one appointed by the circuit court of the United States. It was held that the question was not one of jurisdiction within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1891, the court observing: "The question of jurisdiction which the statute permits to be certified to this court directly must be one involving the jurisdiction of the circuit court as a Federal court, and not simply its general authority as a judicial tribunal to proceed in harmony with established rules of practice governing courts of concurrent jurisdiction as between each other."

In Bache v. Hunt, 193 U. S. 523, 48 L. ed. 774, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 547, Hunt, as receiver, filed an intervening petition for the reim

bursement of certain amounts paid by him as receiver in the extinguishment of prior claims, which certain railroad bonds and stocks had been deposited to secure. A decree was made in his favor, and an appeal was taken to this court. It was said that "the jurisdiction of the circuit court was only questioned in respect to its general authority as a judicial tribunal, and not in respect to its power as a court of the United States. The established rules of practice as to bringing in parties to ancillary or pro interesse suo proceedings, and those governing courts of concurrent jurisdiction as between themselves, was alone involved." The appeal was dismissed.

In Courtney v. Pradt, 196 U. S. 89, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 208, 49 L. ed. 398, a citizen of Wisconsin, duly qualified as an executor in that state, was sued as such in Kentucky. Pradt demurred on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction, and the circuit court of the United States, to which the case had been removed, sustained the demurrer and dismissed the suit. It was said that the court had power to so adjudicate, and that the question decided was not one of the jurisdiction of the circuit court as a court of the United States, but one with respect to the law of Kentucky. The case was dismissed. There is a distinction, however, between these cases which turn upon questions arising after a valid service of process upon the defendant with respect to the mode of procedure, or the conflicting claims of the state and Federal courts, and certain other authorities which turn upon the validity of the service of process itself upon the defendants; in other words, which involve the jurisdiction of the court in any form over the defendant. The leading case is that of Shepard v. Adams, 168 U. S. 618, 42 L. ed. 602, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214. This case turned upon the validity of the service of the summons whereby the defendant was required to appear within ten days after such service, when, by the law of the state, he was allowed thirty days. The question was whether Rev. Stat. § 914, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901. p. 684, assimilating the practice, pleadings, forms, and modes of proceedings in civil causes in the Federal courts to those obtaining in the state courts, applied to the time within which the defendant was required to appear in obedience to a summons. It was held that, as the rule in the Federal court was adopted in conformity with the rules then in force in the state courts, it was not bound to alter its rules every time the state courts saw fit to alter their rules, and that the Federal courts were at liberty to continue their rules without subservience to such changes. The point was made that the question involved was not the jurisdiction

of the Federal court as such, and in reply to that suggestion Mr. Justice Shiras observed: "The present case differs from Smith v. McKay in the essential feature that the contention is that the court below never acquired jurisdiction at all over the defendant by a valid service of process. In such a case there would be an entire want of jurisdiction, and a judgment rendered without jurisdiction can be reviewed on a writ of error directly sued out to this court."

That paragraph is doubtless broader than the exigency of the case required, as the question involved was the validity of the service of process in the Federal court as distinguished from the state court; but in the recent case of Remington v. Central P. R. Co. 198 U. S. 95, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 577, 49 L. ed., it was accepted as applicable to the case of the validity of a summons from a state court, served upon a director of a railroad company in a state other than that in which the company was incorporated. The court denied a motion to set the service aside, whereupon the case was removed into the circuit court of the United States, and the defendant renewed its motion to set aside the summons. The motion was granted, and the action was dismissed for want of jurisdiction of the defendant. It was held, upon the authority of Shepard v. Adams that this court had authority to review the judgment on writ of error.

While the case under consideration is distinguishable from Shepard v. Adams, we think it is concluded by the case last cited, and therefore hold that we have jurisdiction to review the action of the circuit court in dismissing this bill.

2. The merits in the case are contained in the certificate of the district judge, and involve the jurisdiction of the circuit court over the Hammond Elevator Company, by reason of the service in the state of Illinois upon Babb or Battle & Dickes, as agents of such company, and whether the service of process upon them gave the court jurisdiction over the company.

By the law of Illinois (Rev. Stat. chap. 32, § 26), "foreign corporations, and the officers and agents thereof, doing business in this State, shall be subjected to all the liabilities" of domestic corporations; and by chap. 110, § 5, "may be served with process by leaving a copy thereof with any agent of said company found in the county."

The facts showing the relations between the parties served and the elevator company are substantially as follows:

The company maintains a place of business at Hammond, Indiana, and had under lease from the Western Union Telegraph Company the exclusive use, during business hours, of certain telegraph wires running