14 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. the very purpose of transacting business in one State are often organized in another, and it has become a common practice for corporations to establish a head office in a foreign State or country, and to transact there a large portion or the whole of their business. In such cases it has been said that the company has established a domicile there, and made itself subject to all the laws of the State. Its residence or citizenship for the purpose of Federal jurisdiction remains in the State of its origin ; ^ yet it may be fully represented for all business purposes by head officers and general agents, and in such a case, if the local law provides for service of process on such officers or agents, it may perhaps properly be held subject to general jurisdiction in actions in personam. In Railroad Company v. Harris,^ the Supreme Court of the United States said that it was possible for one State by its legisla- tion to recognize the corporation of another, so as to make it for certain purposes a corporation of its own ; and where a railroad company chartered in Maryland had been authorized to use its corporate franchises in the District of Columbia and Virginia, and to build a continuous line, and had head offices in Washington, it was held that it was subject to an action in the District for an injury happening in Virginia to a passenger who had bought his ticket in Washington. The court said it could not be supposed that the legislature had intended to give such privileges to the corporation without giving a remedy in the courts of the District for actions arising within the territory. The plaintiff in this case was not a resident of the District, but the contract on which he sued was made there.^ Lord St. Leonards, in Carron Iron Co. v. McLaren,^ in his dis- senting opinion, which has often been quoted with approval in American courts, said that jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a foreign corporation having an agent and place of business in England could be sustained, not on the ground of service upon the agent there, but because the company having houses and extensive business in England might be regarded as having a dom- 1 Remers v. Seatco Mfg. Co., 70 Fed. Rep. S73-S77 ) Shaw v. Milling Co., 145 U. S. 444; 6 Thomp., Corp., §§ 7997,8029; La Fayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Smith V. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 14 Allen, 336; Nichols v. Breen, 72 Iowa, 239. a 12 Wall. 65. 8 The court approved and followed B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Gallahue's Admr., 12 Gratt. 65S; Gosham v. Supervisors, i W. Va. 308; B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Supervisors, 3 W. Va. 319.
- 5 H. L. Cas. 416-45S.
