51 Mo. 520 | Mo. | 1873
Dissenting Opinion
Section 26, chap. 37, 1 W. S., 294, points out the manner in which writs of summons may be -served on corporations. This section in my opinion comprehends foreign as well as domestic corporations.
There is no good reason why the writ should not be served on a foreign corporation precisely as it is oa a domestic corporation. This was the view which Judge Napton took in Farnsworth vs. Terre Haute, Alton and St. Louis Railroad Company, 29 Mo., 75, and afterwards maintained by Judge Holmes in City of St. Louis vs. Wiggins Ferry Company, 40 Mo., 585.
Besides, the defendant in this case appeared and demurred, and afterwards set up tbe same matter by way of answer, tbat it was a foreign corporation and could not be sued in this State. In my judgment, sucb appearance waived anj' defect there may have been in the service of the summons, and I see no good reason why a foreign corporation should not he subject to the jurisdiction of our courts and to the same rules of pleading as resident corporations.
Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion oí the court.
The court below dismissed the petition in this case, and the only question presented for decision is whether it had jurisdiction over the defendant.
The action was brought against the defendant a foreign corporation, incorporated by.the laws of the State of Kansas, and it was not alleged nor was it any where shown or pretended, that it had its chief office or place of business in this State. The construction placed upon our statute has been uniform. If the chief office or place of business is within this State as designated by the statute, then the foreign corporation is regarded as a domestic one, and amendable to the jurisdiction of our courts by the common process of summons. Where, however, its'office or place of business is not here, then it must be proceeded against as a nou-resident by attachment. (Farnsworth vs. T. H. A. & St. L. R. R. Co., 29 Mo., 75; St. Louis vs. Wiggins Ferry Company, 40 Mo., 580; Robb vs. Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, 17 Mo., 540.)
Let the judgment be affirmed