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.
234 U. S. 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.
234 U. S. 216,
followed to the effect that the provision of the antitrust statute
of Kentucky
Page 234 U. S. 590
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.
MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
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.
234 U. S. 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
Page 234 U. S. 591
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 by the previous case from
Breckenridge County (147 Ky. 655), held that the service was good
and that the antitrust act was not unconstitutional and violative
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 149
Ky. 41. Since the federal question involving the validity of the
antitrust act was considered and decided adversely in the Court of
Appeals, it, as well as the question of due service, is properly
before us.
Miedreich v. Lauenstein, 232 U.
S. 236,
232 U. S. 243,
and cases there cited.
As we have just dealt with the sufficiency of service in the
previous case, involving the same question, it may be disposed of
here by merely referring to that decision. And as the
constitutional validity of the antitrust act was specifically
determined in cases Nos. 276, 291, and 292, entitled
International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, decided June 8,
1914,
ante, p.
234 U. S. 216,
that question is also concluded.
We therefore reach the conclusion that the plaintiff in error
was doing business in Kentucky and that the service was sufficient,
but that the law under which the action was brought is
unconstitutional, and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals
must be reversed, and accordingly remand the case to that court for
further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
