HAYDEN V. ANDROSCOGGIN MILLS, 93 �Hayden V. ThE Androscoggin Mills. �Haydën V. The Bates Manupacturing Company. �{Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. Kovember 20, 1879.) �FoEEiGiT CoKPORATioN — JtJRiSDiCTioiï. — A foreign trading corporation may be sued in the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts, although the property of the defendant has not been attached, where such corpo- ration is doing business within the state, and the summons has been duly served upon an offlcer of the Company. �The plaintiff in the case first above named, by his writ, com- manded the marshal to attach the goods or estate of the Androscoggin Mills, "a corporation duly established by the laws of the state of Maine, and doing business in Boston," to a certain value, and "to su^mmon the defendant." The dec- laration was in trespass, for damages for the alleged infringe- ment of a patent granted to the plaintiff. The return of the marshal was that he had attached a chip as the property of the defendant, and had delivered a summons to T. W. Walker, the president of the company. �The defendants appeared specially, and moved to dismiss. �The second case was in ail respects like the first. �Henry D. Hyde and Elmer P. Howe, for the defendants, distinguished Ex parte SchoUenberger, 96 U. S. 369; Wil- liams V. Empire Transportation Co. H OS. Gaz, 423 ; Pack- ing Co. v. Hunter, 1 Eeporter, 455, in that the service in those cases was precisely such as the state courts required to be made upon foreign corporations, while in Massachusetts an effectuai attachment of property must be made in such cases. Andrews v.Mich. 0. B. Co. 99 Mass. 534; Peabody v. Hamil- ton, 106 Mass. 217. �li. Lund and D. F. Crane, for plaintiff. �LowELL, J. The important point of jurisdiction întended to be raised by the defendants cannot be decided in their favor, upon a motion to dismiss, because it is entirely con- sistent with this record that the defendants should have an agent here expressly authorized to accept service, or that some other fact should exist which would prove the defendants to ��� �
