706 ARTICLE 23.

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 transactions 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 mean-
ing 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. Cj. 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. Hodg-
son 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 con-
tracting 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.

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. Northern Central Ry. Co. v.
Rider, 45 Md. 31; Dugan v. Baltimore, 70 Md. 7. And see Smith Premier Co. v.
Westcott, 112 Md. 150.

Generally.

Sec. 411 of the Code of 1904 was not a grant of a privilege or immunity from
suit to parties otherwise liable to be sued in Maryland, but the grant of a restricted
and limited jurisdiction to the courts over certain suits against foreign corporations
not otherwise amenable to the jurisdiction of our courts. Purpose of this section.
Cromwell v. Royal, etc., Ins. Co., 49 Md. 382. And see Carstairs v. Mechanics' Ins
Co., 13 Fed. 824.

The right of a non-resident to sue a foreign corporation in Maryland is no
longer confined to cases in which the cause of action has arisen or the subject of the
action is situated in this state. The act of 1908, ch. 309—see sec. 345—did not
repeal or modify this section. Hagerstown Brewing Co. v. Gates, 117 Md. 353.