find a decision to support it, nor has one been called to our attention.

True, it has been held time and again that a State cannot burden interstate commerce or pass laws which amount to the regulation of such commerce; but this is a long way from holding that the ordinary process of the courts may not reach corporations carrying on business within the State which is wholly of an interstate commerce character. Such corporations are within the State, receiving the protection of its laws, and may, and often do, have large properties located within the State. In Davis v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry., 217 U. S. 157, this court held that cars engaged in interstate commerce and credits due for interstate transportation are not immune from seizure under the laws of the State regulating garnishment and attachment because of their connection with interstate commerce, and it was recognized that the States may pass laws enforcing the rights of citizens which affect interstate commerce but fall short of regulating such commerce in the sense in which the Constitution gives sole jurisdiction to Congress, citing Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99, 103; Johnson v. Chicago & Pacific Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 23; Pennsylvania: R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477; and The Winnebago, 205 U. S. 354, 362, in which this court sustained a lien under the laws of Michigan on a vessel designed to be used in both foreign and domestic trade.

In International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S. 91, it was held that a law of Kansas which required the filing by a foreign corporation engaged in interstate commerce of a statement of its financial condition as a prerequisite of the right to do such business and which required a certificate from the Secretary of State showing that such statements had been filed as a condition precedent to the right of the corporation to maintain a suit in that State, was void. But that case did not hold, as we should be

required to do to sustain the contention of the plaintiff in error in this case, that the fact that the corporation was carrying on interstate commerce business through duly authorized agents made it exempt from suit within the State by service upon such agents.

We are satisfied that the presence of a corporation within a State necessary to the service of process is shown when it appears that the corporation is there carrying on business in such sense as to manifest its presence within the State, although the business transacted may be entirely interstate in its character. In other words, this fact alone does not render the corporation immune from the ordinary process of the courts of the State.

It follows that the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky must be

Affirmed.

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY OF AMERICA v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF
KENTUCKY.

No. 298. Argued April 24, 1914.-Devided June 22, 1914.

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 Company 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 Company v. Kentucky, ante, p. 216, followed to the effect that the provision of the anti-trust statute of Kentucky

under which this suit was brought is unconstitutional under the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.

149 Kentucky, 41, reversed.

THE facts, which involve the sufficiency of service of process upon a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Kentucky and also the constitutionality of the anti-trust act of Kentucky, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Alexander Pope Humphrey and Mr. Edgar A. Bancroft, with whom Mr. Victor A. Remy was on the brief, for plaintiff in error in this case and in No. 297.1

Mr. Charles Carroll, with whom Mr. James Garnett, Attorney General of the State of Kentucky, Mr. Frank E. Daugherty, Mr. J. R. Mallory, Mr. J. C. Dedman, Mr. C. R. Hill and Mr. C. D. Florence, were on the brief, for defendant in error in this case and in No. 297.1

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 anti-trust 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 Company of America v. The Commonwealth of 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 comFor abstracts of arguments see ante, p. 579.

1

pliance 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 Kentucky, 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 Kentucky, 41. Since the Federal question involving the validity of the anti-trust 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, 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 anti-trust act was specifically determined in cases Nos. 276, 291 and 292, entitled International Harvester Company of America v. The Commonwealth of Kentucky, decided June 8, 1914, ante, p. 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.

Counsel for Plaintiff in Error.

234 U. S.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. HIGDON, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF CRESCENT COAL COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY.

No. 322. Submitted March 19, 1914.-Decided June 22, 1914.

Attempts to inject Federal questions into the record by filing amended pleadings after the case has been remanded by the appellate court come too late to lay the foundation for review by this court, Mutual Life Insurance Co. 7. Kirchoff, 169 U. S. 103, except so far as the appellate court gives consideration to, and passes upon, such questions when the case again comes before it. Miedreich v. Lauenstein, 232 U.S. 236.

In this case held, that defendant had not been deprived of Federal rights because the state court had refused to allow him to file an amended pleading and relitigate a question already decided by setting up alleged violations of Federal rights.

The State has full authority over shipments purely intrastate, and an averment that a service required at one point as to intrastate shipments might be required at other points in regard to interstate shipments only avers an indirect effect upon interstate commerce; and a defendant carrier denied leave to file an amended pleading to that effect is not deprived of rights secured by the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution.

149 Kentucky, 321, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the validity under the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of a judgment of the state court for damages for refusal to transport coal between intrastate points, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Benjamin D. Warfield, Mr. Charles H. Moorman, Mr. Malcolm Yeaman, Mr. Edward S. Jouett, Mr. William A. Colston and Mr. Henry L. Stone for plaintiff in error: