Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/922

886 886 HARVARD LAW REVIEW Although the state may not exclude the corporation, it may com- pel the corporation to submit to the jurisdiction of its courts. The case of Kane v. New Jersey ®^ shows that although a state may not exclude from its borders a nonresident individual, yet it may under certain circumstances impose as a condition of admis- sion the appointment of an agent to accept service of process. A statute of New Jersey provided that a nonresident owner of an automobile should, as a condition precedent to his right to operate his car in the highways of the state, appoint the secretary of state as his agent upon whom process might be served "in any action or legal proceeding caused by the operation of his registered motor vehicle within this state against such owner." The defendant, a resident of New York, having failed to comply with this provision was arrested while driving his automobile in New Jersey. When arrested he was on his way from New York to Pennsylvania. He claimed that the statute as to him violated the Constitution and laws of the United States regulating interstate commerce, and also the Fourteenth Amendment. These contentions were overruled, and he was fined. The conviction was affirmed in the highest court of the state, and the case was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of error. It was held that the statute was constitutional. Mr. Justice Brandeis, speaking for the court, said:^'' "We know that ability to enforce criminal and civU penalties for transgression is an aid to securing observance of laws. And in view of the speed of the automobile and the habits of men, we cannot say that the Legislature of New Jersey was unreasonable in believing that ability to establish, by legal proceedings within the State, any financial liability of nonresident owners, was essential to public safety. There is nothing to show that the requirement is unduly burdensome in practice. It is not a discrimination against nonresidents, denying them equal protec- tion of the law. On the contrary, it puts nonresident owners upon an equality with resident owners." A state may then in the exercise of its police power impose rea- sonable conditions upon nonresidents wishing to do acts within state commerce. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. i (1910); Pullman Co. V. Kansas, 216 U. S. 56 (1910); Ludwig v. Western Union Tel. Co., 216 U. S. 146 (1910); Looney v. Crane Co., 245 U. S. 178 (191 7); International Paper Co. v. Massa- chusetts, 246 U. S. 135. Cf. Interstate Amusement Co. v. Albert, 239 U. S. 560 (1916). « 242 U. S. 160 (1916). " Ibid., 167.