rest, and of the facts to which that principle was applied, it is not apparent why such cases are not authority for the position that such a judgment should be treated as invalid even by the courts of the state in which it was rendered. When a foreign corporation is doing business in a state, jurisdiction over it to render a personal judgment can be acquired by serving process on one of its higher officers, although the officer himself is only a temporary resident.10

109. Officer or Agent in State on Corporate Business. Since any individual may be served in any state where he is found, without reference to the place of his residence, a corporation is entitled to no greater exemption, and will be held to be present in any state to which it sends a general officer for the transaction of its corporate business.11 Where the claim in suit arose in the state of the forum, the mere presence of an officer or agent in the state with reference thereto constitutes doing business, and service of process upon such officer or agent is sufficient to bind the corporation.12 Such representation

implies that the corporation does business, or has business, in the state, for the transaction of which it sends an agent there.18 But the cases are agreed that a corporation is not doing business within a state so as to render it subject to service of process in a suit on a contract executed in some state other than the state of suit, where the person served is a representative of the corporation temporarily in the state with reference to the particular contract sued on.14 Of course if the representative of a foreign corporation is induced by artifice or fraud of the plaintiff to come within the jurisdiction of the court for the

vis, 213 U. S. 245, 29 S. Ct. 445, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 782; Premo Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Jersey-Creme Co., 200 Fed. 352, 118 C. C. A. 458, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1015 and note; Knapp v. Wallace, 50 Ore. 348, 92 Pac. 1054, 126 A. S. R. 742.

Fitzgerald, 137 U. S. 98, 11 S. Ct. 36, 11. Commercial Mut. Acc. Co. v. Da34 U. S. (L. ed.) 608; Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518, 15 S. Ct. 559, 39 U. S. (L. ed.) 517; Barrow Steamship Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 18 S. Ct. 526, 42 U. S. (L. ed.) 964; Remington v. Central Pac. R. Co., 198 U. S. 95, 25 S. Ct. 577, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 959; Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Co., 198 U. S. 477, 25 S. Ct. 768, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 1133. Note: 85 A. S. R. 912.

9. Notes: 50 L.R.A. 592; 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 539.

10. Pennsylvania Lumberman's Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Meyer, 197 U. S. 407, 25 S. Ct. 483, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 810; Venner v. Denver Union Water Co., 40 Colo. 212, 90 Pac. 623, 122 A. S. R. 1036; Knapp v. Wallace, 50 Ore. 348, 92 Pac. 1054, 126 A. S. R. 742. Note: 70 L.R.A. 532.

12. Premo Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Jersey-Creme Co., 200 Fed. 352, 118 C. C. A. 458, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1015 and note.

13. St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350, 1 S. Ct. 354, 27 U. S. (L. ed.) 222; Abbeville Electric Light, etc., Co. v. Western Electrical Supply Co., 61 S. C. 361, 39 S. E. 559, 85 A. S. R. 890 and note, 55 L.R.A. 146.

14. Aldrich v. Anchor Coal, etc., Co., 24 Ore. 32, 32 Pac. 756, 41 A. S. R. 831.

Note: 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1018, 1019.

purpose of securing service of process, the writ will be set aside on a proper showing. 15

110. State Officer.-As has been stated, statutes sometimes require foreign corporations to designate a certain public officer to receive service of process in actions against them.16 Under such statutes it has been held that service cannot be made on the officer's deputy." The process is not served on the officer by virtue of his office, nor does he derive his authority to bind the corporation from his office or from the laws of the state. His entire authority comes from the commission executed by the corporation, and the donee of the power in that instrument is the officer and his successors in office. While a deputy may represent and act for his principal in all things appertaining to his office, receiving service of process is not an official act.18 It has been held in one case, however, that the clerk of the superintendent of insurance, who was specially designated by him for the purpose, was his representative to receive service for a foreign insurance company, where the superintendent had been appointed to receive and accept service, and himself gave a written admission of service.19 The refusal of the officer to receive process, which he has power to receive, will not prevent such attempted service from being effectual.20

111. Service by Publication.-The doctrine of service by publication, as above stated,1 applies in all its force to personal judgments of state courts against foreign corporations. Accordingly jurisdiction in a proceeding in personam against a foreign corporation which has no office, officer, agent, or place of business in the state cannot be obtained by merely serving the corporation by publication. The same rule applies to personal service outside of the limits of the state, which is equivalent to service by publication. But a judgment rendered on service by publication will be binding so far as it affects property of the corporation within the state.5

112. Admission or Waiver of Service.-The statutory agent of a foreign corporation to receive service of summons cannot admit or

15. Fitzgerald, etc., Constr. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 U. S. 98, 11 S. Ct. 36, 34 U. S. (L. ed.) 608; Commercial Mut. Acc. Co. v. Davis, 213 U. S. 245, 29 S. Ct. 445, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 782. And see supra, par. 17.

16. See supra, par. 96.

17. Lonkey v. Keyes Silver Min. Co., 21 Nev. 312, 31 Pac. 57, 17 L.R.A. 351; Bennett v. Supreme Tent, etc., 40 Wash. 431, 82 Pac. 744, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 389.

Note: 23 L.R.A. 499.

18. Bennett v. Supreme Tent, etc., 40 Wash. 431, 82 Pac. 744, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 389.

waive service where it has not been properly made, unless, by the terms of the power of attorney, the officer is authorized both to receive and to accept service. This doctrine seems to be well grounded in principle, whether such agent is regarded as deriving his authority from the statute itself, or from the power of attorney executed in pursuance thereof.8

113. Return.-It must appear by the return that the process was served on some one of the several persons or classes of persons on whom the statute allowed it to be made, but this may appear by a general statement and without disclosing the probative facts from which the officer has drawn his ultimate conclusion. Hence a return is sufficient which shows service of process on an agent of the defendant corporation, provided the statute has authorized service on agents generally without restriction as to their character or class; but if the service must, by the statute, have been made on a particular class of agents, or on an agent of the class specified only under special circumstances, then the return must show that the person served belonged to the class, or that the special circumstances required to authorize the service existed.9 The return is not conclusive as to the fact of agency.10 A return of service on a "state agent" sufficiently shows that he is the person appointed.11

6. Bennett v. Supreme Tent, etc., 40 Wash. 431, 82 Pac. 744, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 389 and note.

7. Note: 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 390. 8. Note: 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 389. R. C. L. Vol. XXI.-86.

9. Note: 85 A. S. R. 937, 938.

10. Mineral Point R. Co. v. Keep, 22 Ill. 9, 74 Am. Dec. 124. See supra, par. 70.

1361

11. Note: 23 L.R.A. 500.

INDEX.

The numbers in this Index refer to pages.