INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY
| Decision Date | 22 June 1914 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
Where the state court has denied a motion to quash the service of process on a foreign corporation, and has also held that the statute on which the action is based is not unconstitutional, both the question of validity of the service and that of the constitutionality of the act are before this Court for review.
International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, ante, P. 579, followed to effect that the plaintiff in error was doing business in the state in which process was served.
International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, ante, P. 216, followed to the effect that the provision of the antitrust statute of Kentucky
under which this suit was brought is unconstitutional under the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.
149 Ky. 41 reversed.
The facts, which involve the sufficiency of service of process upon a foreign corporation doing business in the Kentucky and also the constitutionality of the antitrust act of Kentucky, are stated in the opinion.
A penal action was instituted by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error in the Boyle Circuit Court of Kentucky under the antitrust laws of that state. Summons having been served upon an alleged agent of the plaintiff in error, it filed a motion to quash the return for the reason, as alleged, that the person upon whom service had been made was not the authorized agent of the plaintiff in error, and that it was not doing business in Kentucky. The facts in this case, which are identical with those set out in the previous case (International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, just decided, ante, P. 579), show that the plaintiff in error had, prior to the commencement of this action, revoked the authority of an agent designated by it in compliance
with the laws of Kentucky, and had removed its office from the state, but that it had continued through its agents, the party served in this case being one of them, to solicit orders to be accepted outside of the state for the sale of machines which were to be delivered in Kentucky, and that its agents were authorized to receive money, checks, and drafts in payment therefor, or take the notes of purchasers, payable at any bank in Kentucky.
There are two questions in this case. The Court of Appeals, deciding that this case was governed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Busch v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
... ... the plaintiff being a citizen of Indiana, the defendant of ... Kentucky, and the witnesses residing in Illinois, and none of ... them in Missouri, and defendant being ... the business transacted may be entirely interstate in ... character." [ International Harvester Co. v ... Kentucky, 234 U.S. 589.] ... As to ... the further ... ...
-
Draper v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
... ... the time and place of his injury. No case was made under ... Kentucky law, under the pleadings and evidence, against ... defendant, whether as an invitee or trespasser ... the business transacted may be entirely interstate in its ... character.' [ International Harvester Co. v ... Kentucky, 234 U.S. 589, 34 S.Ct. 947, 58 L.Ed. 1484 ... (234 U.S. 579, 34 ... ...
-
Busch v. L. & N. Railroad Co.
...to manifest its presence within the state, although the business transacted may be entirely interstate in character." [International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 589.] As to the further contention that the prosecution of the suit in a state where neither parties nor witnesses reside ......
-
State v. Hoffman
...under the same circumstances and at the same place as though it were not engaged in interstate commerce. International Harvester Co. v. Ky., 234 U. S. 589, 34 S. Ct. 947, 58 L. Ed. 1484. The fact that the defendant is engaged in interstate commerce is only material in determining whether or......