CORPORATIONS 839

Objection to summons diices tecum directed to General News Service, and to General
News Bureau, Inc., but served on person in service of the latter, was highly technical
and was not ground for quashing citation for contempt in disobeying summons. Ex
parte General News Bureau, 162 Md. 646.

See notes to sec. 109.

The following decided prior to ch. 504, 1937:

When, and relative to what, a foreign corporation may be sued in Maryland.

Sec. 411 of the Code of 1904 did not give Maryland courts jurisdiction over the
internal affairs of a foreign corporation, nor any visitorial power over it so that its
charter might be forfeited or its officers removed; nor can Maryland courts exercise
authority over the by-laws or the relations between the corporation and its members
growing out of the law of its creation. Object of said section. Controversy held to
relate solely to the internal management of a corporation. Condon v. Mutual Reserve
Assn., 89 Md. 116; North State, etc., Co. v. Field, 64 Md. 153.

The object of sec. 411 of the Code of 1904, was to enlarge the jurisdiction of our
courts over foreign corporations doing business in this state. Said section does not
apply to a suit by a non-resident upon a foreign contract, and in such case the foreign
corporation is not amenable to process unless it voluntarily appears, in which event
the court acquires jurisdiction. Fairfax, etc., Co. v. Chambers, 75 Md. 614.

A railroad company of Georgia, having a traffic arrangement with a steamship line
in Maryland running from Baltimore to Savannah, and which employed an agent in
this state to solicit freight, held to be "doing business" in this state, within the
meaning of sec. 411 of the Code of 1904. Service of process made on such agent, held
sufficient to bind the railroad company. Central of Ga. R. R. Co. v. Eichberg, 107
Md. 366. Cf. Gottschalk Co. v. Distilling Co., 50 Fed. 681.

The delivering carrier does not, under the Carmack amendment, become the agent
of the initial carrier (a foreign corporation not otherwise carrying on business in
Maryland), so as to make it suable in this state. Service on agent of home railroad;
meaning of "regularly doing business." Stewart Fruit Co. v. Railroad Co., 143 Md. 64.

Under sec. 411 of the Code of 1904, a suit might be maintained in Maryland by a
resident of Virginia against a Pennsylvania corporation where the application for
insurance, the examination of the applicant, the delivery of the policy and the payment
necessary to its validity, all took place in this state. Fidelity Life Assn. v. Ficklin,
74 Md. 179.

Where a foreign corporation has no place of business in Maryland, and has had no
tiansactions in this state other than the purchase of certain machinery, it is not
amenable to process here. Cook v. Girard Iron Co., 87 Md. 140.

A foreign corporation held to be "doing business" in Maryland within the meaning
of this section; agents held to have implied authority to receive service of process.
State v. Penna. Steel Co., 123 Md. 217.

Attachments.

To bring a case within the operation of the first portion of sec. 411 of the Code
of 1904, applicable to resident plaintiffs, the obligation sought to be enforced must
be a direct liability to such plaintiff. A resident plaintiff cannot maintain an attach-
ment in this state where the cause of action did not arise here and both the garnishee
and the defendant are non-residents. Motion to quash held to have been made in
time. Cromwell v. Royal, etc., Ins. Co., 49 Md. 373; Meyer v. Liverpool, etc., Ins.
Co., 40 Md. 601. Cf. Hodgson v. Southern Bldg. Assn., 91 Md. 445. And see Universal
Life Ins. Co. v. Bachus, 51 Md. 30; Odend'hal v. Devlin, 48 Md. 445.

The last portion of sec. 411 of the Code of 1904 (providing that nothing "in this
article" should prevent or effect attachments against corporations), applied. Hodgson v.
Southern Bldg. Assn., 91 Md. 448.

Service and return of process.

Construing together secs. 409 to 412 of the Code of 1904, it was held that where
a foreign or domestic corporation ceased to have an agent in this state after contracting
a liability to a citizen of Maryland while transacting business here, process might be
served against such corporation as to such liability, by service upon the president or
any director or manager of the corporation found here. Boggs v. Inter-American Mining
Co., 105 Md. 385.

Since sec. 411 of the Code of 1904 required that in case service was made upon an
agent of the corporation, notice of such process should be left at the corporation's
principal office, if the latter requirement is not complied with, a judgment founded
on such defective process is void. Wagner v. Shank, 59 Md. 322.

The object of the portion of this section requiring a copy of the process to be left
at the corporation's principal office being to inform the company of the process against
it, a copy of a summons directed to an agent of the company would be misleading,
and does not bind the corporation; practice in raising the question of the validity,
of such summons. Smith Premier Co. v. Westcott, 112 Md. 150.