BATON V. ST. LOtJlS, ETC., MINING * SMELTlNd 00. 141 �the city of St. Louis. The general question of the right of a crediter of a foreign corporation to sue such corporation in a federal court of any district in which it may have an office, and an officer or agent for the transaction of the general business, has been eonsidered in the following, among other, cases: Railway Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65; Ex parte Sckol- lenherger, 96 U. S. 369; Hayden y. Androscoggin Mills, 1 Fbd. Eep. 93; Riinkle v. Ins. Co. 2 Fed. Eep. 9; Brownell y, R. Co. 3 Fed. Eep. 761; Williams v. Transp. Co. U 0. G. 523; Wilson Packing Co.vl Hunterl Eeporter, (Boston,)' 455. Raihvay Co. v. Harris was a suit broughtin the su^ieme court of the District of Columbia against the Baltimore & Ohfo Eailroad Company, a Maryland corporation.' II? was 'hfeld that the corporation was found within the District of Gdtim-i bia. The actof'congi'e8S,ilpon the construction of which Ihe question was decided, authbrized the company to build a branch road into the District of Columbia; 'and provided as follows: '.!*', \ �"And the saSd ■'Baltimore & Dliib RailVay' Company' are he'fe'by autitoi-A ized to exercise thesame po*ers,; rightsj arid privileges, and sh^lube sub- j6ct;to>the sacie iesttv!tiofl«,,ittitliQtcoi?ctructioii and exte^sion.pf f «.id, lat- eral road into and witljin s^id district, as they may exercise or be^sul^ject to iihder or by virtue (if the^said'act pif incorporation, in the'exteh'siou afid cbnstruEtidn of any kiiltoad'wlthiit the state'of HaTylaiidj aiaa;sh^l be entitled to the same righta, beheflt», andi immuEitiel in ■tlifijUsie of said road, and in regard theretp, aq &xf{ provided ip said charter, except the right to construct any lateral road'or roads in said district i'rom saidlat- eral'road." ^ r i < , ■ ■ ii; �It was held that unde? this act, while there was but one corporation in Maryland and the District of Columbia, there was a unity of ownership throughout, and that the corpora- tion might be sued in the District of Columbia for injuries done on its road outside of said district. �In Ex parte Schollenberger the facts were — �That a foreign corporation was transacting business in Pennsylvania under a statute which provided that the company should flle a written stipulation agreeing that process issued in any suit brought in any court of the eommonwealth having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and served upon an agent specifled by the company to receive service of process for it, should have the same effect as if peraonally served upon the company within the state. ��� �
