BUSINESS JURISDICTION OVER NONRESIDENTS 885 teed by the Constitution. When a state attempts to compel non- residents doing business within the state to submit to the jurisdic- tion of the courts of the state, the vaHdity of the attempt depends upon the question whether this is a reasonable exercise of the power to regulate business. The state has not power to exciude a corporation which seeks to do within the state only interstate business. Nevertheless it was held in International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky ^^ that the state may vaHdly pfovide that such a corporation should appoint an agent to accept service of process. Such a provision does not im- pose an improper burden upon interstate commerce. It merely treats foreign corporations like domestic corporations. Mr. Justice Day, speaking for the court in that case, said: "It is argued that a corporation engaged in purely interstate com- merce within a State cannot be required to submit to regulations such as designating an agent upon whom process may be served as a condi- tion of doing such business, and that as such requirement cannot be made, the ordinary agents of the corporation, although doing interstate business within the State, cannot by its laws be made amenable to judicial process within the State. The contention comes to this, so long as a foreign corporation engages in interstate commerce only it is im- mune from the service of process under the laws of the State in which it is carrying on such business. This is indeed, as was said by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, a novel proposition, and we are unable to 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 regtdation of such com- merce; 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." ^^ " 234 U. S. 579 (1914). ^^ A statute subjecting cars used in interstate commerce to attachment and gar- nishment is not an improper interference with interstate commerce. Davis v. Cleve- land, etc. Ry. Co., 217 U. S. 157 (1910). A state may not impose unreasonable conditions upon a corporation seeking to carry on only interstate commerce within the state. International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S. 91 (1910); Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope, 235 U. S. 197 (1914). But it may impose such conditions , upon a corporation seeking to carry on intrastate as well as interstate commerce, provided the conditions do not actually burden inter- state commerce. Interstate Amusement Co. v. Albert, 239 U. S. 560 (1916). It may not, however, impose conditions upon a corporation seeking to carry on intrastate as well as interstate commerce if the conditions would operate as a burden upon inter-
