1 8 HARVARD LAW RE VIE W. ess. The appointment of the agent secures the presence of a person who represents the company, and if the statute expressly provides for service of process in any cause of action wherever arising, then if the company do transact business within the State, it may be taken to have consented to accept service of process in all actions which the courts of the State are competent to determine. It has frequently been declared by the Federal as well as the State courts, that since a State has a right to exclude a foreign corporation altogether, it may impose conditions under which alone it may come within the State, and that if the corporation avails itself of the privilege, it must be taken to have accepted the conditions. This was the principle laid down by Mr. Justice Curtis in La Fayette Insurance Co. v. French,^ in sustaining jurisdiction over a foreign corporation with respect to a contract made within the State, and he said such conditions must be deemed valid in other States, " if they were not inconsistent with those rules of public law which secure the jurisdiction and authority of each State from encroachment by all others, or that principle of natural justice which forbids condemnation without opportunity of defence." The Supreme Court has since then repeatedly decided that a State may impose such conditions as it pleases upon the doing of any busi- ness by a foreign corporation within its borders, and that unless the condition be complied with the prohibition is absolute ; ^ and in Hooper v. California^ Mr. Justice White says, "The principle that the right of a foreign corporation to engage in business within a State other than that of its creation depends solely upon the will of such other State, has long been settled, and many phases of its application have been illustrated by the decisions of this court," and he refers to La Fayette Insurance Co. v. French, and to many cases relating to franchises and taxes. If, therefore, it be made an express condition of doing business within the State that a foreign corporation should submit to be sued there by any person for any cause of action arising any- where, there would seem to be no doubt that on appointing an agent under such a statute, and so transacting business in pur- suance of the leave so given, a foreign corporation would be taken to have consented to the condition, and that the service of the process would be good. The jurisdiction over the person of the 1 i8 How. 404. * AUgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578. « 155 U. S. 648.
