Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Glenn Maynard wrote: >>(I'm not sure, however, if "resides" is a legally meaningful term, when >>the defendant isn't an individual.) > Good question. > > In the US, if I remember correctly, clauses refering to the > "residence" of corporations generally are treated as referring > either to the state where their corporate head office is, or in the > state in which they are incorporated. However, I'm not totally > sure, and this sort of thing is messy enough (particularly since the > two often differ) that it's probably a good idea to ask a lawyer > about this. There may be some other term which covers corporate > "residence" better.
Under the common law system (US, England, and most other countries which have have been under the British colonial rule), corporations reside in places or incorporation. This is for the purpose of taxation, and to determine their nationality, and `alien' status in situations of hostility. If you want to sue them, the corporation `resides' in every location where it has a place of business. I believe that the position is similar in `Civil law' systems, (France, Germany and similar jurisprudential systems). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
