574 CORPORATIONS. [ART. 23

1904, art. 23, sec. 410. 1888, art. 23, sec. 296. 1884, ch. 316. 1892, ch. 601
1900, ch. 21. 1908, ch. 240, sec. 62.

87. Process issued by any court or justice of the peace of this State
against any corporation thereof may be served on any president, direc-
tor, manager, or other officer; and if none reside in this State, such
corporation may be proceeded against by attachment as a non-resident,
ur such process may be served on any agent, or other person in the
service of the corporation; provided, that in all cases mentioned in this
section, the officer serving process shall leave a copy thereof with the
person upon whom it is served. Every corporation of this Slate may
be sued in any county or in the city of Baltimore, as the case may be.
where its principal office is located, or where it regularly transacts busi-
ness or exercises its franchises, or in any local action, where the subject
matter thereof lies; and process against such corporation may be served
as is hereinabove provided, and may be directed to the sheriff of any
county or of the city of Baltimore, returnable to the clerk of the court
out of which same issued. And whenever any corporation of this State
has become surety on any bond required by law to be filed in any court
thereof or with any register of wills, public board or official—suit
against such corporation on such bond may be brought in the city or
county where the same is filed.

Generally.

Construing together sections 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 trans-
acting 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 to be found here. Boggs v. Inter-American Mining Co., 105
Md. 385.

Although a corporation was not amenable to process under section 410 of
the code of 1904, yet, having voluntarily appeared and the case having been
tried on its merits, the court acquired Jurisdiction. Gemundt v. Shipley, 98
Md. 664; Fairfax, etc., Co. v. Chambers, 75 Md. 614.

The return of the sheriff ought to show affirmatively upon what person or
persons the process was served. Service on the attorney for a corporation
is not sufficient. Waiver of service. Admission of service by attorney. North-
ern Central Ry. Co. v. Rider, 45 Md. 31; Dugan v. Baltimore, 70 Md. 7.

This section has no application to municipal corporations. Phillips v. Balti-
more City, 110 Md. 437.

The word "process," as used In the act of 1832, ch. 306, section 5, was
sufficiently comprehensive to apply to the service of writs of attachment on
a corporation as garnishee. Boyd v. Chesapeake, etc., Canal Co., 17 Md. 210.

Section 410 of the code of 1904, referred to in deciding that a turnpike
company might be sued in the county where its road is located, where its
operations are carried on and where it exercises its corporate powers,
although its principal office is elsewhere. Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Crowther,
63 Md. 572.

The act of 1884, ch. 316, only had to do with the service of process. Sec-
tion 410 of the code of 1904, referred to in deciding that article 75, section
147, was applicable to corporations. Henderson v. Md. Home Ins. Co., 90
Md. 50.

Section 410 of the code of 1904, referred to in construing section 411 of
said code—see notes to section 92. Central, etc., R. R. Co. v. Elchberg, 107
Md. 366; Crook v. Girard Iron Co.. 87 Md. 140. Gottschalk Co. v. Distilling
Co., 50 Fed. 681.