Whether a corporation is doing business within a district so as
to have submitted itself to the jurisdiction, and was present
therein so as to warrant service of process upon it, depends in
each case upon the facts proved.
In this case, while the corporation operates railways outside of
Pennsylvania and has its general office and keeps one of its bank
accounts outside of that state, it has an office in the Eastern
District and that state, where its president and treasurer reside,
and has an office and keeps bank accounts within that District, and
under all the circumstances of the case,
held that the
corporation defendant had submitted to the local jurisdiction,
enjoyed the protection of the laws, and therefore service within
the District on its president was sufficient to give the district
court jurisdiction.
The facts, which involve the question of whether the plaintiff
in error had been properly served with process so as to give the
district court jurisdiction of the action, are stated in the
opinion.
Page 238 U. S. 186
MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is here upon the single question of the jurisdiction
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to entertain the action. The suit was begun by the
Real Estate Trust Company of Philadelphia, against the
Washington-Virginia Railway Company, a corporation of the State of
Virginia, to recover a judgment on certain bonds made by the
Washington, Alexandria, & Mt. Vernon Railway Company, also a
Virginia corporation, payment of which, it was alleged, had been
assumed by the Washington-Virginia Railway Company. The summons in
the action was served upon the president of the defendant railway
company at its office in Philadelphia by handing a true and
attested copy of the summons to the president at such office.
There is no question that the president was the proper officer
to serve, and that he was duly served with process. The contention
of the plaintiff in error is that the service is void and the court
without jurisdiction because, at the time of the service of
process, the defendant corporation was not doing business in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, wherein service was made. As this
Court has had frequent occasion to say, each case of this kind must
depend upon its own facts, and the question is whether the
defendant corporation had submitted itself to the local
jurisdiction and was present therein so as to warrant service of
process upon it.
See St. Louis &c. Railway v.
Alexandria, 227 U. S. 218, and
previous cases in this Court cited on page
227 U. S.
226.
The district court found certain facts, from which it appears:
the defendant is the successor to two electric railway companies,
one of which was the Washington,
Page 238 U. S. 187
Alexandria & Mount Vernon Railway Company, which issued the
bonds upon which the present suit was brought. The defendant
company operates electric railway lines from Mount Vernon to
Alexandria, in the State of Virginia, and from that city to
Washington, in the District of Columbia. Under the laws of
Virginia, the defendant company might have offices outside the
state. The Virginia office of the company, under the laws of
Virginia, must be kept in that state, and was at Mount Vernon,
where there was a ticket agent, and where the annual meetings of
the stockholders were held. The company maintained a general office
at Washington, District of Columbia, where the business of
conducting the physical operation of the road was carried on
through its manager. At the Washington office the cash books of the
company were kept, showing daily receipts, collection of accounts
due, operating record, payroll, time record, and statement of
claims accruing and their payment as made. No books of the company
concerning its business were kept at the Mount Vernon office. The
commercial account of the company was kept at the Commercial
National Bank, of Washington, District of Columbia, where the
receipts from the operation of the road were deposited, and where
checks for operating expenses were drawn on that bank. The company
also kept three smaller accounts in Alexandria, Virginia.
For some time prior to the merger, the Washington, Alexandria
& Mount Vernon Railway Company maintained an office in the Real
Estate Trust Building at Philadelphia, which office was leased by
the president of that company, one Clarence P. King, who
subsequently became president of the merged company, and who was
succeeded by Frederick H. Treat, president of the defendant company
at the time of the service of this writ. The defendant company paid
rental to Mr. King at the rate of $50 per month, which covered the
right of desk room for its president, treasurer, and bookkeeper and
the
Page 238 U. S. 188
use of the furniture, fixtures, and telephone in the office. No
formal authority from the directors appears for maintaining any
office except that at Mount Vernon, Virginia, but the bylaws of the
company provide that its stock shall be transferred only on the
books of the company at the office of its treasurer. Upon
application for listing its stock on the Washington Stock Exchange,
the Washington, Alexandria & Mount Vernon Railway Company,
through its president, declared that the principal office of the
company was located at Mount Vernon, Virginia, with branch offices
at Washington and Philadelphia.
After the merger, the defendant applied to the Philadelphia
Stock Exchange for the listing of its securities, and declared in
its application,
"Stock is transferred at the Company's General Office, 1307 Real
Estate Trust Building, Philadelphia, and registered by the Girard
Trust Company, Philadelphia, Registrar,"
and declared its offices to be as follows:
"Offices:"
"Principal, Mt. Vernon, Virginia."
"General and Transfer, 1307 Real Estate Trust Building,
Philadelphia."
"Washington: 1202 Pennsylvania Avenue."
At the office in Philadelphia, the corporation kept its regular
business ledgers, its stock transfer books and stock ledgers. The
bookkeeper of the company had his desk in the office at
Philadelphia, made his entries in the corporation books kept there,
and conducted general correspondence in relation to the company's
business at that office. The treasurer of the company maintained
the only treasurer's office of the company there, and had there his
desk, papers, and books. The company had four bank accounts in
Philadelphia, into which accounts from time to time was deposited
the surplus of cash not needed in the active operation of the
company. Out of these accounts
Page 238 U. S. 189
were paid interest on mortgages, dividends, and the larger
bills, by checks drawn at the Philadelphia office by the treasurer,
and the deposit and check books on such banks were kept at the
Philadelphia office. The president kept the official seal of the
company in Philadelphia. The president and treasurer lived in
Philadelphia. The president had his desk at the office in the Real
Estate Trust Building, where he was present two days in each week
and went to Washington twice a week. While in Philadelphia, the
president transacted such business of the company as came to his
attention, and conducted the correspondence of the company upon
official stationery, upon which appeared the address at the Real
Estate Trust Building, and the words, "Office of F. H. Treat,
President, Philadelphia," or, "Office of the President,
Philadelphia." The bills of the company, after approval in
Washington by the manager of the railway, were sent to Philadelphia
for examination and approval, and the checks for payment were drawn
at the Philadelphia office and forwarded to Washington. No one at
the Washington office had authority to draw checks. No money was
paid out at the Washington office except petty cash for daily
expenses.
With this finding of facts counsel for the plaintiff in error
finds little fault. The objection is rather to the inference drawn
by the court below from such facts. It is urged that the keeping of
the books in Philadelphia was for the convenience of the president
and treasurer, but it also appears that such books were required to
be kept by the bylaws of the company. Among the uncontroverted
facts, it appears that the defendant company had an office in the
City of Philadelphia, where the president of the company lived,
upon whom service was made, and that at this office, the treasurer
of the company, who also lived in Philadelphia, kept its regular
books, and from this office was conducted a general correspondence
in relation to the business of the company. The company kept
Page 238 U. S. 190
four bank accounts in separate banks in the City of
Philadelphia, where money was deposited and checked out in payment
of mortgages, dividends, and the larger bills of the company. Such
business of the company as required his attention at the
Philadelphia office was there transacted by the president. Checks
for payment of bills of the company at Washington were drawn at
Philadelphia and forwarded to Washington.
We think the mere recital of these facts makes it evident that
the corporation was properly served. It had submitted itself to the
local jurisdiction, and there enjoyed the protection of the laws.
In that jurisdiction by duly authorized agents, it was, at the time
of service, transacting an essential and material part of its
business.
It follows that the judgment of the district court, maintaining
its jurisdiction, must be affirmed.