Iowa courts have interpreted language in predecessor statutes regarding service on "last known" corporate officers to apply to dissolved corporations. See Reliance Motor Co. v. Craig, 221 N.W. 499, 500 (Iowa 1928) (noting in dicta that an Iowa statute referring to service on a "last known" officer of a corporation "seems to have reference to moribund, dormant, or dissolved corporations"). In Wis. Ark. Lumber Co. v. Cable, 140 N.W. 211, 215 (Iowa 1913), the Iowa Supreme Court determined that a plaintiff had made "sufficient service" upon a voluntarily dissolved corporation by serving one of its last known officers.

De Castro v. Compagnie Francaise Du Telegraphe, C.C., 76 F. 425. A foreign corporation, after it has once entered a state, is not bound to remain there, but may withdraw at will. Reliance Motor Co. v. Craig, 206 Iowa 804, 221 N.W. 499. Jurisdiction ceases when a foreign corporation ceases to do business and withdraws from the state. American Loan Inv. Co. v. Boraas, supra; Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U.S. 406, 23 S.Ct. 728, 47 L.Ed. 1113; Roark v. American Distilling Co., 8 Cir., 97 F.2d 297; St. John v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Corp., 5 Cir., 69 F.2d 96; R.L. Witters Associates, Inc., v. Ebsary Gypsum Co., D.C., 19 F. Supp. 646; Jefferson Island Salt Co. v. E.J. Longyear Co., 210 Ala. 352, 98 So. 119; Gaboury v. Central Vermont Ry. Co., supra [ 250 N.Y. 233, 165 N.E. 275]; Swann v. Mutual Res. Fund L. Ass'n, C.C., 100 F. 922; Eureka Merc. Co. v. California Ins. Co., 130 Cal. 153, 62 P. 393.

De Castro v. Compagnie Francaise Du Telegraphe (C. C.) 76 F. 425. A foreign corporation, after it has once entered a state, is not bound to remain there, but may withdraw at will. Reliance Motor Co. v. Craig, 206 Iowa, 804, 221 N.W. 499. Jurisdiction ceases when a foreign corporation ceases to do business and withdraws from the state. American Loan Inv. Co. v. Boraas, supra; Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U.S. 406, 23 S.Ct. 728, 47 L. ed. 1113; Roark v. American Distilling Co. (8 Cir.) 97 F.2d 297; St. John v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Corp. (5 Cir.) 69 F.2d 96; R. L. Witters Associates, Inc. v. Ebsary Gypsum Co. (D.C.) 19 F. Supp. 646; Jefferson Island Salt Co. v. E. J. Longyear Co. 210 Ala. 352, 98 So. 119; Gaboury v. Central Vermont Ry. Co. supra; Swann v. Mutual Res. Fund L. Ass'n. (6 Cir.) 100 F. 922; Eureka Merc. Co. v. California Ins. Co. 130 Cal. 153, 62 P. 393.

By signing a form of acceptance printed on the contract, Polk-Peterson Corporation became a member of the Distributors Group. As stated, Polk is a director of the appellee corporation. The question as to whether a foreign corporation has entered the state for the purpose of doing business therein is reviewable by and must be determined under the laws of the United States and the decisions of the Federal Supreme Court. American Asphalt Roof Corp. v. Shankland, 205 Iowa 862, 219 N.W. 28, 60 A.L.R. 986; Reliance Motor Co. v. Craig, 206 Iowa 804, 221 N.W. 499; Burnham Mfg. Co. v. Queen Stove Works, 214 Iowa 112, 241 N.W. 405; Peterson v. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co., 205 U.S. 364, 27 S. Ct. 513, 51 L. Ed. 841; People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 38 S. Ct. 233, 62 L. Ed. 587, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 537; International Harvester Co. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579, 34 S. Ct. 944, 58 L. Ed. 1479. The ultimate question in such cases for decision is one of fact, whether the law of the state or of the United States is applied.

We are not concerned here with the permit law of this state, requiring that a foreign corporation shall secure a license to do business in Iowa or subject itself to penalty prescribed for failure so to do. Chapter 386, Code of 1927. See Service System v. Johns, 206 Iowa 1164; Reliance Motor Co. v. Craig, 206 Iowa 804. It may not be said that the presence of the general agent of the defendant corporation in Mahaska County at the time of service of notice was merely casual.

To constitute due process, the agent on whom service is made must be such at the time of the service; for if he is not, he is under no duty to communicate notice to his principal, and there is no presumption that he would communicate it. State v. Bitter Root Valley Irr. Co., 185 Iowa 60, 71; State Ins. Co. v. Granger, 62 Iowa 272, 275; Reliance Motor Co. v. Craig, 206 Iowa 804; 14a Corpus Juris 1415; Wuchter v. Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13 (72 L. Ed. 446), — though the contrary was said in Bradshaw v. Des Moines Ins. Co., 154 Iowa 101, 109. The case cited there, however, Ockerson v. Burnham Co., 63 Iowa 570, was a case raising the question of venue, and not the validity of service of notice.