and all other members of an insurance syndicate which had attempted to sell its risk through the defendant, a reinsurance broker. The defendant moved to quash service, arguing that Illinois did not have jurisdiction over its person. The circuit and appellate courts agreed, finding that the defendant did not carry on business within Illinois with sufficient regularity to constitute "doing business” in the State. The court found it of no consequence to its analysis that the defendant may have earned $5 million in Illinois because "substantial revenues from sales in Illinois *** are not enough to satisfy 'doing business’ in a contract action.” Rokeby-Johnson, 230 Ill. App. 3d at 319, 594 N.E.2d at 1198; see also Kadala v. Cunard Lines, Ltd. (1992), 226 Ill. App. 3d 302, 589 N.E.2d 802 (<HOLDING>). Rather than emphasizing the amount of the
holding that venue is proper in any judicial district in which the corporation is doing business holding that for a domestic corporation the foreign principal place of business does not count holding that foreign corporation was not doing business in illinois and thus personal jurisdiction was lacking even though corporation had some contact with the state and maintained a registered agent here because tjhere is nothing in the illinois code of civil procedure that supports asserting in personam jurisdiction over a corporate defendant simply because the plaintiff served summons upon the defendants illinois registered agent holding that substantial revenue earned from extensive advertising in illinois does not submit a foreign corporation to jurisdiction of state courts under the doing business test holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state