
    AMERICAN WOODEN-WARE CO. v. STEM et al.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    July 14, 1894.)
    Writs—Service on Foreign Corporation.
    Service on foreign corporation by serving its secretary while temporarily in the state in attendance on a federal court to testify as a witness in a cause to which such corporation was a party, held invalid, it appearing that such corporation did no business in the state except selling goods through a traveling salesman, and in one instance buying a stock of goods and selling them through an agent specially appointed for that purpose. Good Hope Oo. v. Railway Barb-Fencing Oo., 22 Fed. 635, and Golden v. Morning News, 42 Fed. 112, followed.
    This was an action by the American 'Wooden- Ware Company against Arthur Stem and the Oval Wood-Dish Company. Motion to-vacate service of summons. The papers on this motion disclosed substantially the following sta te of facts:
    The action was originally commenced in the supreme court for the city and county of New York by the service of a summons upon defendant company’s treasurer while temporarily within the state in attendance on United States court in charge of one of the company’s causes, and in expectation of testifying as a witness. Defendant company appeared on motion to vacate said service on the circumstances stated, but said motion was denied. • Thereafter defendant company removed the cause to the United States circuit court, and there renewed the motion upon additional facts. The papers before the court disclosed that prior to the action the defendant company had bought in, on execution sale, a stock of goods belonging to its judgment debtor, and sold the same to various customers, in the regular course of business, through an agent especially appointed for that purpose, and residing in the state of New York. Also that the defendant company had Cor many years previously obtained in said state orders for its goods through a traveling salesman resident in Ohio, but that the company had no oiiice or regular place of business, not did it transact business within the state of New York, except as aforesaid.
    Walter D. Edmonds, for defendant company, appearing specially for the purpose of the motion,
    Cited Good Hope Co. v. Railway Barb-Fencing Co., 22 Fed. 635, 637; Golden v. Morning News, 42 Fed. 112; Atchison v. Morris, 11 Fed. 582; McGillin v. Claflin, 52 Fed. 657; Ahlhauser v. Butler, 50 Fed. 705; Bentlif v. Finance Corp., 44 Fed. 667.
    Edward Sohenck, for complainant
    Cited Bryant v. Thompson, 27 Fed. 881, 883; Duncan v. Gegan, 101 U. S. 812; Estes v. Belford, 22 Fed. 275; Davis v. Railway Co., 25 Fed. 788; Carrington v. Railroad Co., 9 Blatchf. 468, 469, Fed. Cas. No. 2,448; Sweeney v. Coffin, 3 Am. Law T. Rep. U. S. Cts. 18, Fed. Cas. No. 13,686; Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327; Pope v. Manufacturing Co., 87 N. Y. 137; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 377.
   LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This case is within the principle of Good Hope Co. v. Railway Barb-Fencing Co., 22 Fed. 635; Golden v. Morning News, 42 Fed. 112. Motion to vacate service of process is granted.  