Service on Foreign Corporations.

In 1856, the Court de- cided Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French,37 a pioneer case in its general class. It held that, where a corporation chartered by the State of Indiana was allowed by a law of Ohio to transact business in the latter state upon the condition that service of process upon the agent of the corporation should be considered as service upon the corporation itself, a judgment obtained against the corporation by means of such process ought to receive in Indiana the same faith and credit as it was entitled to in Ohio.38 Later cases establish under both the Fourteenth Amendment and Article IV, § 1, that the cause of action must have arisen within the state obtaining service in this way,39 that service on an officer of a corporation, not its resident agent and not present in the state in an official capacity, will not confer jurisdiction over the corporation,40 that the question whether the corporation was actually “doing business” in the state may be raised.41 On the other hand, the fact that the business was interstate is no objection.42

Footnotes

37
59 U.S. (18 How.) 404 (1856). [Back to text]
38
To the same effect is Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Spratley, 172 U.S. 602 (1899). [Back to text]
39
Simon v. Southern Ry., 236 U.S. 115 (1915). [Back to text]
40
Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U.S. 518 (1895); Riverside Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 (1915). [Back to text]
41
International Harvester v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579 (1914); Riverside Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 (1915). [Back to text]
42
International Harvester v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579 (1914). [Back to text]