This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1882. Excerpt: ... The jury found a verdict for the phi in tiff as to the household furniture, and as to I he stock and fixtures, and the horse, harness and wagon, they found for the defendants. Harold Goodwill, Esq., for plaintiff. Chan. C. Lister, Esq., for the defendants. Leg. Int., Vol. 35, p. 438. The Lf.iiirh Coal And Navigation Company vs. The Lehicui Boom Company. 1. A private corporation may he sued in any county of the State where the pi iper ollieer is within the jurisdiction of the court, and can he served with n summons. 2. A private corporation has no such privilege as that of being sued only in thci'uunty where it chiefly curries on its business, or where its ollice is located. Rule to show cause why the return of service of the writ should not be set aside. Opinion delivered November 9, 1878, by Thaykr, P. J.--The writ was sewed personally in the city of Philadelphia, upon the president of the Leliigh Boom Company, John Brown. Mr. Brown resides at Enston, Northampton county, Pennsylvania. The office of the company is at White Haven, Luzcrne county. The company wiis incorporated by an act of assembly approved April 13, 1868 (P. L. 898), for the purpose of erecting booms in the river Leliigh, between Port Jenkins, in Lucerne county, and Dam No. 3, in Carbon count v, with power to collect bills, borrow money for their works, and in general to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a corporation. The company lias no office or agency in Philadelphia. The general question therefore raised by the present rule is whether a suit may be commenced in this county against a corporation whose works and whose office are situated in another county, by serving the summons upon the president of tlie corporation, who is found in this county. The act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 572...