FLEXNER
v.
FARSON ET AL., PARTNERS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF FARSON, SON & COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that a Kentucky statute purporting to authorize service of process on a business partner as agent for a nonresident partnership was unconstitutional and could not confer jurisdiction over the defendants in a subsequent suit brought in Illinois. The Court reasoned that while states may impose service conditions on foreign corporations they could exclude entirely, they lack power to exclude nonresident individuals doing business within their borders, and therefore cannot unilaterally impose such conditions on them as a prerequisite to doing business.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff in error upon a judgment for money rendered by a Kentucky Court. The declaration alleges that the transaction in respect of which the judgment was rendered took place at Louisville, Kentucky, and that at that time the defendants were doing business there as partners through Washington Flexner, who was and continued to be their agent until the time of this suit. It further alleges that the defendants were nonresidents and that the service of summons of the Kentucky suit was made upon Washington Flexner in accordance with a Kentucky statute authorizing it to be made in that way. The defendant William Farson was the only one served with process in the present action and he pleaded that the defendants in the former suit did not reside in Kentucky, were not served with process and did not appear; that Washington Flexner was not their agent at the time of service upon him; that the Kentucky statute relied upon was unconstitutional; that the Kentucky Court had no jurisdiction, and that its judgment was void under the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiff demurred to the pleas, and stood upon his demurrer when it was overruled, whereupon judgment was entered for the defendants. There was an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State on the ground that the Court below did not give full faith and credit to the Kentucky judgment and erred in holding the Kentucky statute as to service unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment below. 268 Illinois, 435. The same errors are alleged here.
It is argued that the pleas tacitly admit that Washington Flexner was agent of the firm at the time of the transaction sued upon in Kentucky, and the Kentucky statute is construed as purporting to make him agent to receive service in suits arising out of the business done in that State. On this construction it is said that the defendants by doing business in the State consented to be bound by the service prescribed. The analogy of suits against insurance companies based upon such service is invoked. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association v. Phelps, 190 U. S. 147. But the consent that is said to be implied in such cases is a mere fiction,' founded upon the accepted doctrine that the States could exclude foreign corporations altogether, and therefore could establish this obligation as a condition to letting them in. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93, 96. The State had no power to exclude the defendants and on that ground without going farther the Supreme Court of Illinois rightly held that the analogy failed, and that the Kentucky judgment was void. If the Kentucky statute purports to have the effect attributed to it, it cannot have that effect in the present case. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy, 241 U. S. 518, 522, 523.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (U.S. 1942)…es for Divorce, 19 Harvard Law Review 586. Others seem to lack his capacity for quick adjustment. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Meneffee, 237 U. S. 189; cf. McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U. S. 90; Flexner v. Farson, 248 U. S. 289; Doherty & Co. v. Goodman, 294 U. S. 623; Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457. Cf. Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 316; Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193; Fall v. Eastin, 215 U. S. 1; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U. S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U. S. 611; Gran…1 / 2
-
Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1927)…h process nor appeared in the suit is without validity. McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U. S. 90. The mere transaction of business in a State by non-resident natural persons does not imply consent to be bound by the process of its courts. Flexner v. Farson, 248 U. S. 289. The power of a State to exclude foreign corporations, although not absolute but qualified, is the ground on which such an implication is supported as to them. Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. v. Gold Issue Mining Co., 243 U. S. 93, 96. But a State m…
-
Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Goodman, 294 U.S. 623 (U.S. 1935)…e in Iowa and there carried on this business. Considering this fact, and accepting the construction given to § 11079, we think to apply it as here proposed will not deprive him of any right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Flexner v. Parson, 248 U. S. 289, 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 p…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (16 total)
- Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (U.S. 1877)
- Hurtado v. People of California, 110 U.S. 516 (U.S. 1884)
- Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1877)
- Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1914)
- Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1887)
- The Lafayette Ins. Co. v. Maynard French, 18 How. 404 (U.S. 1855)
- McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1917)
- Blake v. McCLUNG, 172 U.S. 239 (U.S. 1898)
- Pa. Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U.S. 93 (U.S. 1917)
- Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1896)