Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Goodman, 294 U.S. 623 (1935)
U.S. Supreme Court, (April 01, 1935)
Docket number: 469
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/20017717
Id. vLex: VLEX-20017717
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Search in this document
Document options
RSSU.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Melvin F. Beaty, To His Own Use and To the Use of United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a Body Corporate, Appellants, v. M. S. Steel Company, Inc., a Body Corporate, Appellee. Raymond A. Grainger, To His Own Use and To the Use of United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a Body Corporate, Appellants, v. M. S. Steel Company, Inc., a Body Corporate, Appellee., 401 F.2d 157 (4th Cir. 1969) To His Own Use and To the Use of United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a Body Corporate, Appellants, v. M. S. Steel Company, Inc., a Body Corporate, Appellee. Raymond A. Grainger, To His Own Use and To the Use of United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a Body Corporate, Appellants, v. M. S. Steel Company, Inc., a Body Corporate, Appellee.
Constitution of the United States (Annotated) - Section 2: Interstate Comity
U.S. Supreme Court HENRY L. DOHERTY & CO. v. GOODMAN, 294 U.S. 623 (1935)
[Page 294 U.S. 623, 628] istration and written consent for service of process upon the secretary of state. See Merrick v. N. W. Halsey & Co., 242 U.S. 568, 37 S.Ct. 227. Doherty voluntarily established an office in Iowa and there carried on this business. Considering this fact, and accepting the construction given to section 11079, we think to apply it as here proposed will not deprive him of any right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Flexner v. Farson, 248 U.S. 289, 39 S.Ct. 97, much relied upon, does not sustain appellant's position. There the service was made upon one not then agent for the defendants; here the situation is different. King was manager of the appellant's office when the sale contract was made; also when process was served upon him. Moreover, under the laws of Iowa, neither her citizens nor nonresidents could freely engage in the business of selling securities. The power of the states to impose terms upon nonresidents, as to activities within their borders, recently has been much discussed. Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632; Wuchter v. Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13, 48 S.Ct. 259, 260, 57 A.L.R. 1230; Young v. Masci, 289 U.S. 253, 53 S.Ct. 599, 88 A.L.R. 170. Under these opinions it is established doctrine that a state may rightly direct that nonresidents who operate automobiles on her highways shall be deemed to have appointed the secretary of state as agent to accept service of process, provided there is some 'provision making it reasonably probable that notice of the service on the secretary will be communicated to the nonresident defendant who is sued.' So far as it affects appellant, the questioned statute goes no farther than the principle approved by those opinions permits. Only rights claimed upon the present record are determined. The limitations of section 11079 under different circumstances we do not consider. Affirmed.