BATON V. ST. LOUIS, ETC., MINING & BMKLTING CO. 145 �brought — in such cases as corne within the jurisdiction of the court ; not that it is intended to confer jurisdiction in cases not covered by previens legislation. It is strongly urged by counsel that the act was intended by the legislature to go further, and to authorize suits to be brought against all for- eign corporations having offices and agents in this state, and it is said that great inconvenience will resuit from any other construction. We recognize the fact that it is important that laws should be enacted authorizing suits against cor- porations wherever they are f ound doing business ; but it must also be conceded that it is the duty of the legislature, and not that of the courts, to make such laws. If the statute of Missouri, as it now stands and being fairly construed, does not authorize such suits to be brought in the courts of the state, we are not disposed to assert the jurisdiction of this court. Although the supreme court of this state has not passed upon the question of the true construction of the act last men- tioned,it has received the careful consideration of the St. Louis court of appeals, in the recent case of McNichol v. V. S. Mer- cantile Reporting Agency, where, in a well-reasoned opinion, it is held that the statute does not authorize suits against all foreign corporations doing business in this state. It is held that the several acts must be construed together; that they are not necessarily in oonflict, and that it is the duty of the courts to give f ull eff ect to each ; and it is said : �" The clause m question is perfectly consistent in tertns witti section 742. The latter section prescribes in exact tertns what right of action shall exist against foreign corporations The section under consideration goes no further than to prescribe the manner in which process shall be served on such corporations. It says nothing about the efCect of such service ; that is lef t subject to the operation of other provisions of the Re- vised Statutes, and under those provisions it can have no more operation than as a substitute for constructive notice in a proceeding against a non- resident individual." �For the present, and until the question shall be decided by the supreme court of Missouri, we shall adopt and follow this ruling. As, however, the case first' cited is now, as we un- derstand, pending on appeal in the supreme court of the state, the complainant may, if he see fit, have this case continued �v.7,no.2— 10 ��� �
