JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 7 company in the transaction of business within the State that the company is considered as being found there for the purpose of receiving service of process.^ The questions remaining unsettled are whether, if, under the former class of statutes, the company transact business within the State, and send agents there for that purpose, it can be sued there with respect to matters having no relation to that business ; and whether, tmder the latter class of statutes, if a company designate a person to receive service of process, it can be sued whether it actually transact business in the State or not, or with respect to matters having no relation to the business it does transact there. The fact that the cause of action arose outside of the territory does not of itself defeat the jurisdiction of the court. If the defendant be found within the reach of process, and the action be what is called transitory, the action may be maintained, and the judgment is good. It was only by a fiction that this result was obtained in the English law; but this was because of a rule of practice which required that the trial should be had before a jury of the neighborhood, and not because of an inherent lack of juris- diction.^ There are cases, however, in which the English courts and ours (and they are more liberal in this respect than those of the continent of Europe) will refuse to entertain actions against foreigners for causes arising abroad ; and they will not enforce contracts illegal where they are made, nor treat as torts acts that are legal where committed.^ The general rule, however, is that " where the action is in personam, whether in respect of a contract or of a tort, our courts will entertain it, though it may have arisen abroad, and though the parties to it may be aliens, provided that service of process be made according to their rules ; " * and although the jurisdiction exists, it will not always be exercised, unless the circumstances are such that a refusal to entertain the action would be a denial of all remedy.^ 1 Camden Rolling Mill Co. v. Swede Iron Co., 3 Vr. (N. J.) 15; St. Clair v. Cox, K)6 U. S. 350; Goldey v. Morning News Co., 156 U. S. 518. 2 Mostyn v. Fabrigas, Cowp. 161. ' Phillips V. Eyre, L. R. i Q. B. i, 28; Doulson v. Matthews, 4 Term R. 503; Santos V. Illedge, 6 C. B. n. s. 841.
- I Smith's Ldg. Cas., 8th Am. ed., 1051-1068 ; Story, Conft. Laws, 542, 543 ; Whar
ton's Conft. Laws, 744; Phill. Priv. Int. Law, 701 ; Buenos Ayres Ry. Co v. Northern Ry. Co., 2 Q. B. D. 210; Scott v. Lord Seymour, i H. & C. 219; LeForest v. Tolman, 117 Mass. 109.
- DeWitt V. Buchanan, 54 Barb. 31. In the case of The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 355,
Mr. Justice Bradley refers to the elaborate arguments of counsel in the case of the
