MOOH V. VIfiaiNIA FIBE & MARINE INS. CO. 703 �Columbia, by section 11 of chapter 64 of the acts 1867, (le St. at Large, 4:04,) which providea that, in actions against foreign corpo- rations brought in the district, all process may be served upon the agent of such corporation or person conducting its business in the district. �And in Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65, Mr. Justice Swayne, speaking for the United States supreme court, said : A corporation "cannot migrate, but may exercise its authority in a foreign territory upon Buch conditions as may be prescribed by the law of the place. One of these conditions may be that it shall consent to be sued there. Ifitdo business there, it will be presvmed to have consen'ed, and will be bound accordingly." This language was cited with approbation and adopted as a correct exposition of the law by the same court in Ry. Co. V. Whitten, 13 Wall. 270, and in Ex parte Schollenberg, 96 U. S. 376. �The case of Michacl v. Ins. Co. of Nashville, 10 La. Ann. 737, which was decided in 1855, (before the statute of 1877,) sustains the decis- ion in Moulin v. Ins. Co., rendered in the same year. In it the supreme court of Louisiana not only held that a non-resident corpo- ration could be sued through its resident agent, but that this right could not be destroyed by a revocation of the powers of an agent pre- viously to a suit. The policy sued upon in that case covered the year 1852. The property insured was burned in August of that year. Suit was brought on the fourteenth of October following, and citation served on W. A. Johnson, the agent through whom the pol- icy was taken, in November, 1852. By its exception, the defendant pleaded that the "agency of said Insurance company in New Orleans had been some time since withdrawn." In support of the exception a telegraphie dispateh was proved, dated at Nashville on the twenty- ninth of September, 1852, and received the same day, declaring that the company had withdrawn its agency from New Orleans, and direct- ing that risks should be declined after the first of October ensuing. The court held that the service of process was valid and effective. �The case of Wright v. Liverpool, L. e G. Ins. Co. 30 La. Ann. 1186, is an authority only apparently contrary to this principle. It arose before the statute of 1877. It decided that a foreign corporation, represented by a general agent and local board of directors residing in New Orleans, could not be brought into court by a citation served on a local agent domiciled in one of the county towns of Louisiana, who was only authorized to receive applications for insuranee and give binding receipts for the same, and who had not exercised or rep- ��� �
