In a suit against the defendant the only service was that on a domestic subsidiary of the defendant. The defendant challenges the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that it has no "place of business" within the district. Held, whether the service was good raises a fact question; on the evidence the defendant so far ignored the separate entity of its subsidiary as to permit it to be served with process by service on its subsidiary as its agent. Gray v. Eastman Kodak Co., 53 F.(2d) 864 (1930).