Gordon v. Longest, 16 Pet. 97; Kanouse v. Martin, 15 How. 198. The compliance with the conditions of the act of Congress ousted the Supreme Court of New York of its jurisdiction, and all further proceedings therein were void. 1 Stat. 79, sect. 12. Stevens v. Phœnix Insurance Co., 41 N.Y. 149; Gordon v. Longest, supra; Kanouse v. Martin, supra. Nor can the decision below be sustained by the verbal criticism of the Court of Appeals. Ladd v. Tudor, 3 Woodb. M. 325; People v. City of Chicago, 34 Ill. 356; Sweeney v. Coffin, 1 Dill. 73; Shepard v. Graves, 14 How. 505.
The Court, after discussing the provisions of the attachment law, said that: "We regard the principle to be too firmly settled by repeated adjudications of the Federal and State Courts to admit of further controversy, that a corporation has its domicile and residence alone within the bounds of the sovereignty which created it, and that it is incapable of passing personally beyond that jurisdiction. ( Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. (U.S.) 404; Merrick v. Van Santvoord, 34 N.Y. 208; Stevens v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 41 N.Y. 150.)" The Court then considered the precise question presented in this case, viz: whether the shares of a non-resident defendant in the stock of a foreign corporation, can be deemed to be within this State, by reason of the fact that the president or other officers of a corporation are here engaged in the carrying on of the corporate business.
In Powers v. Chesapeake Ohio Ry. Co., 169 U.S. 100, 18 Sup. Ct. 264, 42 L.Ed. 676, it was held that under Act Cong. March 3, 1887, c. 373, 24 St. at L. 552, amending Act Cong. 1789, c. 20, 1 St. at L. 73, known as the "Judiciary Act," as corrected by act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 St. at L. 433 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 508), the right to remove could be exercised as soon as the pleadings on behalf of plaintiff were so amended as to show a removable cause, although as originally begun the action was not removable because the necessary diversity of citizenship or amount in controversy did not appear. In Stevens et al. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 41 N.Y. 149, it is held: "Where the defendant, citizen of another state, regularly, and strictly in accordance with act of Congress of 1789, known as the 'Judiciary Act,' files his petition in the state court for the removal of the cause to the United States Circuit Court, and a sufficient bond, which is offered for the approval of the state court, the state court is ipso facto ousted of jurisdiction; and, whether an order for removal is granted or denied by the state court, all further proceedings therein are coram non judice and void."
(Fisk v. Union P. R. R. Co ., 8 Blatchf. 243; New York Silk Mfg. Co. v. Second Nat. Bank , 10 F. 204; Dillon on Removal of Causes, sec. 15; Railroad Co. v. Koontz , 104 Wis. 5; Shaft v. Phoenix etc. Ins. Co ., 67 N.Y. 544; 23 Am. Rep. 138; Stevens v. Phoenix Ins. Co ., 41 N.Y. 149.) The dismissal of the appeal to the superior court could have no greater effect than to reinstate the judgment appealed from to its void state.
But we regard the principle to be too firmly settled by repeated adjudications of the Federal and State courts, to admit of further controversy, that a corporation has its domicile and residence alone within the bounds of the sovereignty which created it, and that it is incapable of passing personally beyond that jurisdiction. ( Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. [U.S.] 404; Merrick v. Van Santvoord, 34 N.Y. 208; Stevens v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 41 id. 150.) But it is equally true that a foreign corporation is permitted to sue in the courts of this State, and that suits in personam may be brought against it by service of process on its officers or agents within the jurisdiction.
Defendant is a resident of Bronx county. Plaintiff is a foreign corporation. Its principal place of business is located in Concord, N.H. It is, therefore, a non-resident of the State. ( Plimpton v. Bigelow, 93 N.Y. 592; Stevens v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 41 id. 149.) The fact that the plaintiff is authorized to do business in this State, and that it maintains an office and store in the city of Syracuse where it conducts a large part of its business, does not change its residence.