634 CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE.—3 BLAND.

taken from the place of its residence; because a corporation has a
fixed place where it is settled, and whence it cannot be removed,
like a natural person; and therefore, that a distringas against it to
compel an appearance, or obedience to an order or decree, must be
directed to the sheriff of the county wherein it is resident. Gilb.
Com. Pleas, 228; 1 Harr. Pra. Chan. 263. In some cases the Leg-
islature has anticipated and removed all ambiguity and difficulty
in relation to this matter by expressly declaring, that suits against
it shall be prosecuted in the County Court of the county in which
the president of the body politic shall reside. 1797, ch. 70, s.
24. («)

Admitting it, however, to be true, as a general rule, that all
process against a corporation should be directed to the sheriff1 of
that county of which it is resident; that there may be corporations
liable to be sued any where, because of their having no distinctly
fixed place of residence; and that this judgment, confessed in the
Court of Anne Arundel County, cannot be deemed illegal, because
of that county not having been the residence of the Cape Sable
Company; yet, as its Act of incorporation has declared, that a
meeting of its stockholders shall be held on the first Monday of
April of every year, in the City of Baltimore, 1818, ch. 195, s. 2;
the law has, so iar as a special domicil can be given to such an
institution, fixed its local habitation in the City of Baltimore. It
is therefore clear, that this case comes within the spirit, if not
within the letter of the provisions of those Acts of Assembly which
declare it to be unlawful to sue or arrest any inhabitant out of his
proper county, or where he may happen to be found about his
necessary affairs out of the county where he resides. 1714, ch. 4,
s. 2; 1728, ch. 24, s. 2; 1796, ch. 43, s. 14; 1801, ch. 74, s. 11. And,
as it is obvious, that a fraud may be more easily practised by suing
and obtaining a * judgment against a corporation in a county
658 different from that of its visible and public location, the
confession of a judgment in a Court not having jurisdiction over
the place of its residence, is a fact which should not be overlooked
in an investigation of a charge of fraud, alleged to have been per-
petrated b;y means of such a proceeding.

But although this Court could not revise or reverse the judg-
ment which Oliver had obtained in Anne Arundel County Court,
yet its defects and infirmities, as indicated, were so palpable, that
as he, himself, declares in his answer, he deemed it a mere nullity,
which it was most prudent at once to abandon, and endeavor to
authenticate his claim by a correct judgment; and, that, being

(n) It has been since declared, that where & scire facias may be ordered
against a corporation to show cause why its charter should not be vacated,
the writ shall issue out of the County Court of the county which shall be
used by it for keeping its place of business in, &c.—1832, ch. 306, 8. 3.