International Harvester Co. of America v. Kentucky
234 U.S. 579 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
Facts
International Harvester Co. was indicted in Breckenridge County, Kentucky, for alleged violation of the state's anti-trust laws. The company had previously done business in Kentucky and designated Louisville as its principal place of business, but later revoked its appointed agent for service of process. After the indictment, the company issued instructions to its agents in Kentucky, limiting their authority to taking orders for out-of-state approval and shipping goods from outside the state. Agents were not to make contracts in Kentucky but could receive payments or notes for debts. The company argued that these activities did not constitute "doing business" in Kentucky, thus challenging the sufficiency of service of process.
Procedural history
An indictment was returned against the Harvester Company in Breckenridge County, Kentucky, for violating anti-trust laws. The company moved to quash the return, arguing insufficient service and that it was not doing business in Kentucky. The court overruled the motion, and upon the company's failure to appear or plead, a default judgment for a $500 penalty was entered. This judgment was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
Issue
The primary legal question is whether International Harvester Co. was carrying on business in Kentucky in such a manner as to justify the state courts in taking jurisdiction over it through service of process. A related issue is whether a foreign corporation engaged solely in interstate commerce is immune from service of process under state law.
Holding
The Court held that International Harvester Co. was engaged in carrying on business in Kentucky, making the service of process sufficient to sustain the judgment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky was affirmed.
Rule
For a personal judgment to be rendered against a corporation, it must be "doing business" within the state, with each case depending on its specific facts. While mere solicitation is generally insufficient, a continuous course of business involving the solicitation of orders, shipment of goods into the state, and authority for agents to receive payments or notes within the state constitutes "doing business." A corporation carrying on business within a state, even if that business is entirely interstate in character, is not immune from the ordinary process of the state courts.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.