PART V.] CORPORATE ACTS WITHOUT THE STATE. [§ 392. In New York, section 1780 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a foreign corporation may be sued on any cause of action by a resident of the state or a domestic corporation, but when the plaintiff is a non-resident or a foreign corpora- tion, only in the following cases : (1) when the action is brought to recover damages for the breach of a contract made within the state, or relating to property situated within the state at the time when the contract was made ; (2) when the action is brought to recover real property situated within the state, or a chattel replevied within the state ; (3) when the cause of action arose within the state, except where the object of the action is to affect the title to real property situated without the state. Before the passage of this, and other and former statutes which it supplements or is a substitute for, a foreign corporation could not be brought in invitum into a New York court. 1 And the present rule in New York is that in cases other than those pro- vided for in the above-mentioned sections of the code, the court the owner being a non-resident, and his certificate never having been within this state. Plimpton v. Bige- low, 93 N. Y. 592, reversing S. C, 12 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 202; Ireland v. Globe Milling Co., 19 R. I. 180. Compare Schmidlapp v. La Confiance Ins. Co., 71 Ga. 246. Contra, Young v. Iron Co., 85 Tenn. 189. Shares of stock in a foreign corporation cannot be attached by seizure of the stock certificate. Armour Brothers v. Nat. Bank, 113 Mo. 12. Foreign corpora- tions are subject to garnishment only where an original action could be be- gun against them in the same courts to recover the debt garuisheed. Myer v. Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co., 40 Md. 595; Compare Haddon v. Linville, 86 Md. 210; Linville v. Haddon, 88 Md. 594; Hodgson v. Southern B'ld'g Assn., 91 Md. 439. See Biause v. New England Fire Ins. Co., 21 Wis. 509. A foreign corporation having no property of the debtor within the state, nor owing money to him pay- able within the state, cannot be gar- uisheed in the state. Wright v. Chi- cago, etc., R. R. Co., 19 Neb. 175; Nat. Bk. v. Frutick, 2 Marv. (Del.) 35. A domestic corporation has its exclusive residence in the jurisdic- tion of origin and cannot be gar- nisheed in another jurisdiction for debts owing by it to home creditors, so as to make the attachment effec- tual against such a creditor in the absence of jurisdiction acquired over his person. Douglass v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 13'8 N. Y. 209. When a foreign corporation sues in Massachusetts a citizen of another state on a cause of action arising in that other state, the Massachusetts court may decline jurisdiction when the amount is trifling and the defendant would be put to great inconvenience, and there is no reason why suit should not be brought in his state. Nat. Tele- phone, etc., Co. v. Du Bois, 165 Mass. 117. 1 See Gibbs v. Queen Insurance Co., 63 N. Y. 114; aud compare Ervin v. Railway Co., 28 Hun (N. Y.), 269. 375
