and would seem from the affidavits and exhibits to have become operative by the posting of a letter of the defendant, accepting corrections, at Chicago, on February 10, 1917, although by the declaration it is alleged to have been made in Cincinnati. Beaumont v. Prieto, 249 U. S. 554, 63 L. ed. 770, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383. [215] The defendant is a contractor, constructing buildings and the like, and, being a foreign corporation, in 1910 had designated Simeon Nash as a person upon whom process against it could be served within the state of Ohio, as required by statute. Subsequently it constructed buildings in Ohio, but its last work was finished on October 26, 1918, and its workmen and property were withdrawn from the state. Since that date it has made no bids for work there. This action was begun on April 5, 1919, in a state court of Ohio, but afterwards was removed to the district court of the United States. The only service was upon Nash, and the question is whether it was sufficient in the circumstances set forth. The An annual report is required by Gen. Code, § 5499, from foreign corporations for profit-doing business in the state. The defendant filed such a report in July, 1919, after the service, and no doubt would have been ready to bid upon Ohio contracts that seemed to it tempt ing, as it had done in the past. plaintiff contends that these facts show that it was doing business in Ohio when the writ was served. The defendant says that the report was necessary for the ascertainment of taxes due from it for the last financial year, but it may be assumed that the wish to keep open the possibility of further employment was a contributing motive. It did nothing, however, and it contends that merely watching from outside for a chance was not enough to bring it into the trap. If it had withdrawn from the state, the agency of Nash did not extend to receiving service in a suit upon a contract made and to be performed as this was. Chipman v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co. 251 U. S. 373, 64 L. ed. 314, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172. The defendant relies upon the analogy of that case. The purpose in requiring the appointment of such an agent is primarily to secure local jurisdiction in respect of business transacted within the state. Of course, when a foreign corporation appoints one, as required by statute, it [216] takes the risk of the construction that will be put upon the statute and the scope of the agency by the state court. Pennsylvania F. Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Min. & Mill. Co. 243 U. S. 93, 61 L. ed. 610, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 344. But the reasons for a limited interpretation of a compulsory assent are hardly less strong when the assent is expressed by the appointment of an agent than when it is implied from going into business in the state without appointing one. In the latter case the implication is limited to business transacted within the state. Simon v. Southern R. Co. 236 U. S. 115, 131, 132, 59 L. ed. 492, 500, 501, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Old Wayne Mut. Life Asso. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 22, 23, 51 L. ed. 345, 351, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236. Unless the state law, either expressly or by local construction, gives to the appointment a larger scope, we should not construe it to extend to suits in respect of business transacted by the foreign corporation elsewhere, at least, if begun, as this was, when the long previous appointment of the agent is the only ground for imputing to the defendant an even technical presence. Chipman v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co. supra. The indications of the Ohio statutes, so far as they go, look to "liability incurred within this state." Gen. Code, § 181. As we know of no decision to the contrary by the supreme court of Ohio, we are of opinion that the service upon Nash was bad. Judgment affirmed. 3. It is the duty of the Federal Supreme Court, on a direct appeal from a de 214 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. keep open the possibility of further employment within the state. For other cases, see Writ and Process, III. c, 2, b, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] [No. 56.] Argued November 7, 1921. Decided December 5, 1921. IN ERROR to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Dis trict of Ohio to review a judgment which dismissed the petition in a suit against a foreign corporation, for want of a valid service of process. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Leo J. Brumleve, Jr., argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Walter A. DeCamp and Dudley V. Sutphin, filed at brief for plaintiff in error: The business must be such in character and extent as to warrant the inference that the corporation has subjected itself to the jurisdiction and laws of the district in which it is served, and in which it is bound to appear when a proper agent has been served with process. Eickhoff v. Fidelity & C. Co. 74 Minn. 139, 76 N. W. 1030; Kennedy v. Agricultural Ins. Co. 165 Pa. 179, 30 Atl. 724. Mr. Simeon Nash argued the cause, and, with Mr. C. C. Williams, filed a brief for defendant in error: Under the Ohio decisions a corporation must be within the terms of the statute in order to give operative effect to compliance therewith. Bigalow Fruit Co. v. Armour Car Lines, 74 Ohio St. 168, 78 N. E. 267; Chipman v. Thomas B. Jeffrey Co. 251 U. S. 373, 64 L. ed. 314, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172. The foreign corporation must be present in the state; and, being there, must further by its acts subject itself. Green v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 205 U. S. 530, 51 L. ed. 916, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 595; W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. 236 U. S. 723, 59 L. ed. 808, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 458. It was not error to sustain the motion mons in the state court. to quash the service of the alias sum The designation of the statutory agent was, by its terms, for service of process from state courts only. Kennedy v. Agricultural Ins. Co. 165 Pa. 182, 30 Atl. 724; Olson v. Osborne, St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. 30 Minn. 444, 15 N. W. 876; Stone v. Alexander, 227 U. S. 218, 57 L. ed. 486, Travelers Ins. Co. 78 Mo. 657; State ex 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 245, Ann. Cas. 1915B, rel. Standard F. Ins. Co. v. Gantt, 274 77; International Harvester Co. v. Ken-Mo. 490, 203 S. W. 964. tucky, 234 U. S. 579, 58 L. ed. 1479, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 944; People's Tobacco Co. Pennsylvania F. Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue v. American Tobacco Co. 246 U. S. 79, 62 L. ed. 587, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 233, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 537; Green v. Chicago, B. & Min. & Mill. Co. 243 U. S. 93, 61 L. ed. Q. R. Co. 205 U. S. 530, 51 L. ed. 916, 27 610, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 344; Stone v. Sup. Ct. Rep. 595; International Text-Travelers Ins. Co. 78 Mo. 655. book Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S. 91, 54 L. ed. 678, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 493, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 481, 18 Ann. Cas. 1103. The tendency of legislative and judicial decisions is and has been to make it easy to obtain jurisdiction of foreign corporations. Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 42 L. ed. 964, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526; Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Meyer, 197 U. S. 418, 49 L. ed. 816, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 483. The agent named in compliance with § Blanton v. Burroughs Adding Mach. Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court: This case is here on error to a judgment of the district court that held the summons in the suit void, and, on the plaintiff's statement that it could not secure service otherwise, dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. An appeal to this court lies in such a case. Board of Trade v. Hammond Elevator Co. 198 U. S. 424, 49 L. ed. 1111, 25 Sup. Ct. The action is brought by an Rep. 740. The material facts are as follows: Ohio corporation upon a contract made with the defendant, a Missouri corporation, to deliver "f. o. b. cars Ann Arbor, Michigan," specified woodwork for the library building of the University of Michigan, upon which the defendant was engaged. The contract was made by correspondence between the plaintiff in Cincinnati and the defendant in Chicago, 257 U. S. and would seem from the affidavits and | Pennsylvania F. Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue exhibits to have become operative by the Min. & Mill. Co. 243 U. S. 93, 61 L. ed. posting of a letter of the defendant, ac- 610, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 344. But the reacepting corrections, at Chicago, on February 10, 1917, although by the declaration it is alleged to have been made in Cincinnati. Beaumont v. Prieto, 249 U. S. 554, 63 L. ed. 770, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383. [215] The defendant is a contractor, constructing buildings and the like, and, being a foreign corporation, in 1910 had designated Simeon Nash as a person upon whom process against it could be served within the state of Ohio, as required by statute. Subsequently it constructed buildings in Ohio, but its last work was finished on October 26, 1918, and its workmen and property were withdrawn from the state. Since that date it has made no bids for work there. This action was begun on April 5, 1919, in a state court of Ohio, but afterwards was removed to the district court of the United States. The only service was upon Nash, and the question is whether it was sufficient in the circumstances set forth. An annual report is required by Gen. Code, § 5499, from foreign corporations for profit-doing business in the state. The defendant filed such a report in July, 1919, after the service, and no doubt would have been ready to bid upon Ohio contracts that seemed to it tempting, as it had done in the past. The plaintiff contends that these facts show that it was doing business in Ohio when the writ was served. The defendant says that the report was necessary for the ascertainment of taxes due from it for the last financial year, but it may be assumed that the wish to keep open the possibility of further employment was a contributing motive. It did nothing, however, and it contends that merely watching from outside for a chance was not enough to bring it into the trap. If it had withdrawn from the state, the agency of Nash did not extend to receiving service in a suit upon a contract made and to be performed as this was. Chipman v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co. 251 U. S. 373, 64 L. ed. 314, 49 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172. The defendant relies upon the analogy of that case. The purpose in requiring the appointment of such an agent is primarily to secure local jurisdiction in respect of business transacted within the state. Of course, when a foreign corporation appoints one, as required by statute, it [216] takes the risk of the construction that will be put upon the statute and the scope of the agency by the state court. sons for a limited interpretation of a compulsory assent are hardly less strong when the assent is expressed by the appointment of an agent than when it is implied from going into business in the state without appointing one. In the latter case the implication is limited to business transacted within the state. Simon v. Southern R. Co. 236 U. S. 115, 131, 132, 59 L. ed. 492, 500, 501, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Old Wayne Mut. Life Asso. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 22, 23, 51 L. ed. 345, 351, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236. Unless the state law, either expressly or by local construction, gives to the appointment a larger scope, we should not construe it to extend to suits in respect of business transacted by the foreign corporation elsewhere, at least, if begun, as this was, when the long previous appointment of the agent is the only ground for imputing to the defendant an even technical presence. Chipman v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co. supra. The indications of the Ohio statutes, so far as they go, look to "liability incurred within this state." Gen. Code, § 181. As we know of no decision to the contrary by the supreme court of Ohio, we are of opinion that the service upon Nash was bad. 214 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. keep open the possibility of further employment within the state. For other cases, see Writ and Process, III. c, 2, b, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] [No. 56.] Argued November 7, 1921. Decided December 5, 1921. IN ERROR to the District Court of the IN ERROR to the District Court of the trict of Ohio to review a judgment which dismissed the petition in a suit against a foreign corporation, for want of a valid service of process. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Leo J. Brumleve, Jr., argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Walter A. DeCamp and Dudley V. Sutphin, filed a brief for plaintiff in error: The business must be such in character and extent as to warrant the infer ence that the corporation has subjected itself to the jurisdiction and laws of the district in which it is served, and in which it is bound to appear when a proper agent has been served with process. Eickhoff v. Fidelity & C. Co. 74 Minn. 139, 76 N. W. 1030; Kennedy v. Agricultural Ins. Co. 165 Pa. 179, 30 Atl. 724. Mr. Simeon Nash argued the cause, and, with Mr. C. C. Williams, filed a brief for defendant in error: Under the Ohio decisions a corporation must be within the terms of the statute pliance therewith. in order to give operative effect to com Car Bigalow Fruit Co. v. Armour 172. The foreign corporation must be present in the state; and, being there, must further by its acts subject itself. Green v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 205 U. S. 530, 51 L. ed. 916, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 595; W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. 236 U. S. 723, 59 L. ed. 808, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 458. It was not error to sustain the motion to quash the service of the alias summons in the state court. The designation of the statutory agent was, by its terms, for service of process from state courts only. Kennedy v. Agricultural Ins. Co. 165 Pa. 182, 30 Atl. 724; Olson v. Osborne, St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. 30 Minn. 444, 15 N. W. 876; Stone v. Alexander, 227 U. S. 218, 57 L. ed. 486, Travelers Ins. Co. 78 Mo. 657; State ex 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 245, Ann. Cas. 1915B, rel. Standard F. Ins. Co. v. Gantt, 274 77; International Harvester Co. v. Ken-Mo. 490, 203 S. W. 964. tucky, 234 U. S. 579, 58 L. ed. 1479, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 944; People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co. 246 U. S. 79, 62 Pennsylvania F. Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue L. ed. 587, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 233, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 537; Green v. Chicago, B. & Min. & Mill. Co. 243 U. S. 93, 61 L. ed. Q. R. Co. 205 U. S. 530, 51 L. ed. 916, 27 610, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 344; Stone v. Sup. Ct. Rep. 595; International Text-Travelers Ins. Co. 78 Mo. 655. book Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S. 91, 54 L. ed. 678, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 493, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 481, 18 Ann. Cas. 1103. The tendency of legislative and judicial decisions is and has been to make it easy to obtain jurisdiction of foreign corporations. Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 42 L. ed. 964, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526; Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Meyer, 197 U. S. 418, 49 L. ed. 816, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 483. The agent named in compliance with § Blanton v. Burroughs Adding Mach. Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court: This case is here on error to a judg ment of the district court that held the summons in the suit void, and, on the plaintiff's statement that it could not secure service otherwise, dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction over Board the person of the defendant. An appeal to this court lies in such a case. of Trade v. Hammond Elevator Co. 198 U. S. 424, 49 L. ed. 1111, 25 Sup. Ct. The action is brought by an Rep. 740. The material facts are as follows: Ohio corporation upon a contract made with the defendant, a Missouri corporation, to deliver "f. o. b. cars Ann Arbor, Michigan," specified wood work for the library building of the University of Michigan, upon which the defendant was engaged. The contract was made by correspondence between the plaintiff in Cincinnati and the defendant in Chicago, 257 U. S. when the assent is expressed by the ap and would seem from the affidavits and Pennsylvania F. Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue exhibits to have become operative by the Min. & Mill. Co. 243 U. S. 93, 61 L. ed. posting of a letter of the defendant, ac- 610, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 344. But the reacepting corrections, at Chicago, on sons for a limited interpretation of a February 10, 1917, although by the compulsory assent are hardly less strong declaration it is alleged to have been made in Cincinnati. Beaumont v.pointment of an agent than when it is Prieto, 249 U. S. 554, 63 L. ed. 770, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383. [215] The defendant is a contractor, constructing buildings and the like, and, being a foreign corporation, in 1910 had designated Simeon Nash as a person upon whom process against it could be served within the state of Ohio, as required by statute. Subsequently it constructed buildings in Ohio, but its last work was finished on October 26, 1918, and its workmen and property were withdrawn from the state. Since that date it has made no bids for work there. This action was begun on April 5, 1919, in a state court of Ohio, but afterwards was removed to the district court of the United States. The only service was upon Nash, and the question is whether it was sufficient in the circumstances set forth. An annual report is required by Gen. Code, § 5499, from foreign corporations for profit-doing business in the state. The defendant filed such a report in July, 1919, after the service, and no doubt would have been ready to bid upon Ohio contracts that seemed to it tempting, as it had done in the past. The plaintiff contends that these facts show that it was doing business in Ohio when the writ was served. The defendant says that the report was necessary for the ascertainment of taxes due from it for the last financial year, but it may be assumed that the wish to keep open the possibility of further employment was a contributing motive. It did nothing, however, and it contends that merely watching from outside for a chance was not enough to bring it into the trap. If it had withdrawn from the state, the agency of Nash did not extend to receiving service in a suit upon a contract made and to be performed as this was. Chipman v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co. 251 U. S. 373, 64 L. ed. 314, 49 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172. The defendant relies upon the analogy of that case. The purpose in requiring the appointment of such an agent is primarily to secure local jurisdiction in respect of business transacted within the state. Of course, when a foreign corporation appoints one, as required by statute, it [216] takes the risk of the construction that will be put upon the statute and the scope of the agency by the state court. implied from going into business in the state without appointing one. In the latter case the implication is limited to business transacted within the state. Simon v. Southern R. Co. 236 U. S. 115, 131, 132, 59 L. ed. 492, 500, 501, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Old Wayne Mut. Life Asso. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 22, 23, 51 L. ed. 345, 351, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236. Unless the state law, either expressly or by local construction, gives to the appointment a larger scope, we should not construe it to extend to suits in respect of business transacted by the foreign corporation elsewhere, at least, if begun, as this was, when the long previous appointment of the agent is the only ground for imputing to the defendant an even technical presence. Chipman v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co. supra. The indications of the Ohio statutes, so far as they go, look to "liability incurred within this state." Gen. Code, § 181. As we know of no decision to the contrary by the supreme court of Ohio, we are of opinion that the service upon Nash was bad. Judgment affirmed. [For other cases, see Courts, V. c, 1, b, in Di- |