1 6 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. In Massachusetts, jurisdiction over foreign corporations was formerly given only in suits begun by attachment, and in such cases no question of jurisdiction in rem could arise ; but in suits brought by garnishee process it has been held that a foreign cor- poration having its executive offices in Boston was amenable to such process as a corporation having a " usual place of business within the State," and the court said it must presume that a judg- ment would protect the company in case it were sued elsewhere on the same debt.^ Judge Lowell, in the United States Circuit Court in Massachu- setts,^ held that a suit might be maintained in the Federal court in that State against a foreign corporation without an attachment of property, and laid it down as a general proposition " that a trad- ing corporation is of right suable in any country in which it con- ducts an important part of its business." The case, however, related to an infringement of a patent within the district. None of these cases, except that of the Shanghai bank, goes so far as to decide directly that even in the case of an actual residence within the State, a foreign corporation would be amenable to suits by foreigners, or to suits having no relation to any business done within the State. It may not always be easy to distinguish between cases of mere agency and cases in which there is established what is sometimes called a domicile within the State, and it is not necessary now to discuss the question whether a corporation can, in the proper sense • of the word, have two domiciles ; ^ but if a foreign corporation does in fact have its head offices within the State, transacts its general business, and is represented there by its officers and managers, and outside of the jurisdiction of the courts. If a decree should go against a person resid- ing in a foreign country, it would be for the courts of that country to determine whether it should be enforced against him. 1 National Bank of Commerce v. Huntington, 129 Mass. 444. 2 Hayden v. Androscoggin Mills, i Fed. Rep. 93.
- This has been much discussed in cases relating to garnishee process, but juris-
diction may be sustained in such cases on the ground that the corporation is found for the purpose of being warned not to pay the debt, and that validity of the garnishment does not depend upon the location of the debt, or the domicile of the debtor. See Douglass V. Insurance Co., 138 N. Y. 209; Mooney v. Buford, 72 Fed. Rep. 32 ; Na- tional Insurance Co. v. Chambers, 53 N. J. Eq. 468 ; 32 Atl. Rep. 663 ; Myer v. Liver- pool, etc. Ins. Co., 40 Md. 595 ; National Bank of Commerce v. Huntington, 126 Mass. 444. As to domicile for the purpose of jurisdiction, see Carron Iron Co. v. McLaren, 5 H. L. Cas. 416-449, 459; Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Chambers, 53 N. J. Eq. 468, 495; Dicey, Dom. no, 112; 6 Thomp., Corp., §§ 7999, 8000.
