Hiller  v.  B.  &  M.  B.  E.  Co.,  70  N.  Y.  223.  The  same  rule  is
held  in  Pope  v.  Terre  Haute  Car  Co.,  87  id.  137,  and  it  seems
the  judgment  will  be  valid  for  any  purpose  within  the  State,  and
can  be  enforced  against  any  property  of  the  corporation  within  the
State.  The  manner  of  commencing  the  action  is  prescribed  by  sec-
tion 432.  Our  courts  have  jurisdiction  of  an  action  brought  by  a
citizen  of  this  State  against  a  foreign  corporation,  in  which  he  is  a
stockholder,  to  restrain  illegal  acts  of  the  directors  when  they  are
personally  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court ;  Pish  v.  Chicago,
etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  53  Barb.  513  ;  and  of  an  action  by  a  resident  in
which  the  principal  defendant  is  a  foreign  corporation,  brought  to
procure  a  sale  of  bonds  delivered  by  it  as  collateral  to  its  notes.  Coffin
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.,  4  Hun,  625.
Our  courts  have  jurisdiction  of  a  suit  by  one  foreign  corporation
against  another  and  certain  individuals,  resident  citizens  of  tliis  State.
Direct  U.  S.  Cable  Co.  v.  Dominion  Tel.  Co.,  84  N.  Y.  153,  revers-
ing 23  Hun,  568.  Our  courts  will  not  interfere  with  the  general
business  of  a  foreign  corporation ;  Way  v.  Keyport,  etc.,  Co.,  1 6
Abb.  320n;  Howe  v.  Deuel,  43  Barb.  504;  nor  to  regulate  their
64


504  Action  by  and  against  a  Coepoeation.
internal  affairs,  unless  fraud  is  shown  jeopardizing  the  property  of
stockholders  in  this  State.  Eowell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  Co.,  51  Barb.
