
    Hezekiah Andrews vs. Michigan Central Railroad Company.
    A foreign corporation can be sued in this Commonwealth only by means of an attachment of its property, unless jurisdiction otherwise is expressly given by statute.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court dismissing an action of contract, for want of legal service, on the motion of the defendants, who appeared specially for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction. The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      C. Allen, for the defendants,
    cited Peckham v. North Parish in Haverhill, 16 Pick. 286; Danforth v. Penny, 3 Met. 564; Gold v. Housatonic Railroad, 1 Gray, 424; Blackstone Manufacturing 
      
      Co. v. Blackstone, 13 Gray, 488; Erickson v. Nesmith, 4 Allen, 233; Smith v. Mutual Insurance Co. 14 Allen, 336; Gen. Sts. c. 68, § 15.
    
      W. S. B. Hopkins, (D. Aiken with him,) for the plaintiff.
   Hoar, J.

This is an action against a railroad corporation established in the state of Michigan, and the only service of the writ was upon the treasurer of the corporation at their office in Boston. There was no attachment of property. The writ alleges that the corporation has its usual place of business within the Commonwealth.

We are aware of no authority for the maintenance of such an action; and none has been found by the diligence of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. On the contrary, the numerous cases cited for the defendant fully support the opposite conclusion. A foreign corporation can only be sued in this Commonwealth by means of an attachment of its property; unless, as in the case of foreign insurance companies, by virtue of an express statute provision. The motion to dismiss was rightly allowed. Judgment affirmed.  