Crook v. Girard Iron & Metal Co.

Roberts, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action of replevin brought by the appellant against the appellee to recover the possession of a lot of electrical machinery. The appellant is a citizen of the State of Maryland; the appellee is a body corporate of the State of New Jersey. The appellee, in June, 1896, purchased at sheriff’s sale in Baltimore City the above-mentioned machinery and paid cash for the same.

After the sale and delivery of said machinery the appellant, claiming that he had purchased the same from the appellee and was entitled to the possession thereof, sued out the writ of replevin and took possession of the goods in dispute. The writ having been served upon Mr. Ginsburg, the agent of the appellee, it appeared in the Court below for the sole purpose of filing a motion to quash the writ of summons and to set aside the return of the sheriff, assigning reason therefor, that it was a corporation, not chartered by the laws of this State, and did not hold and exercise franchises in this State at the time of the service of the writ issued in this case. There is but one question arising on this appeal which will be necessary for us to consider and determine, and that relates solely to the right of the appellant to maintain this action under the state of case which the record presents. In the view which we entertain of the disposition which should be made of the motion to quash, it will not be requisite to pass upon any other question in the record, for the reason that if no legal service of the writ of replevin has been made upon the appellee, it will be useless to consider any other question in the case.

The character of the question before us has been sufficiently indicated in what we have already ¹⁴⁰ •said. ' The decisions upon this question are by no means uniform ; to the contrary, they are somewhat confused. But we think the decided weight of authority is in favor of the proposition that so long as a corporation confines its operation to the State in which it was created, it cannot be sued in a State, where it has no office or transacts no business, by serving process on its president or other officer, when temporarily present within such State. Thompson on Corporations, sec. 7994; Moulin v. Trenton Mut., &c., Co., 24 N. J. L. 222; Camden Rolling Mill Co. v. Swede Iron Co., 32 N. J. L. 15; US. v. Am. Bell Telephone Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 17.

The provisions of the Code which relate to this subject •are sections 295, 296 and 297 of Art.