876 HARVARD LAW REVIEW To what extent has a state control over nonresidents not per- sonally within the state but doing business therein, either as in- dividuals or as partners? To what extent may the state confer upon its courts jurisdiction over such persons? In Pennoyer v. Neff,"^^ in which the general principles in regard to jurisdiction were thoroughly discussed and expounded, these questions were expressly left open. Mr. Justice Field said: ^^ "Neither do we mean to assert that a State may not require a non- resident entering into a partnership or association within its limits, or making contracts enforceable there, to appoint an agent or representa- tive in the State to receive service of process and notice in legal pro- ceedings instituted with respect to such partnership, association, or contracts, or to designate a place where such service may be made and notice given, and provide, upon their failure to make such appointment or to designate such place, that service may be made upon a public officer designated for that purpose, or in some other prescribed way, and that judgments rendered upon such service may not be binding upon the non-residents both within and without the State." A number of cases have lately arisen involving the vaHdity of a Kentucky statute. This statute ^^ provides that: "In actions against an individual residing in another State, or a partnership, association, or joint stock company, the members of which reside in another State, engaged in business in this State, the svimmons may be served on the manager, or agent of, or person in charge of, such business in this State, in the county where the business is carried on, or in the county where the cause of action occurred." The courts of Kentucky have upheld the validity of this stat- ute.^^ In several cases, however, the courts of other states have held invahd Kentucky judgrnents rendered under the statute.^^ V. Mabee, supra; De la Montanya v. De la Montanya, 112 Cal. loi, 44 Pac. 354 (1896). . . ^ 95 U. S. 714 (1877). " lUd., 735. 28 Kentucky Civil Code, § 51, subsec. 6. 29 Guenther v. American Steel Hoop Co., 116 Ky. 580, 76 S. W. 419 (1903); Johnson V. Westerfield, 143 Ky. 10, 135 S. W. 425 (1911); Crane v. Hall, 165 Ky. 827, 178 S. W. 1096 (1915)-
- " Moredock v. Kirby, 118 Fed. 180 (C. C, W. D. Ky., 1902); Flexner v. Farson,
268 ni. 435, 109 N. E. 327 (1915); Cabanne v. Graf, 87 Minn. 510, 92 N. W. 461 (1902). For cases holding similar statutes invalid, see Brooks v. Dun, 51 Fed. 138 (C. C, W. D. Tenn., 1892); Ralya Market Co. v. Armour & Co., 102 Fed. 530 (C. C,
