The Cordova daily times., 1915-05-22

when they are delivered to the car rier outside of the state. Notes for the purchase price may be taken and they may be made payable at any bank in Kentucky. All contracts of every and any kind made with the people of Kentucky must be made outside cs that state, and they will be contracts governed by the laws of the various states in which we have general agencies handling interstate business with the people of Kentucky. For example, contracts make by the general agent at Parkersburg, w. Va, will be West Virginia contracts"
 The court, through MT. Justice Day, says:
 Taking this as the method of carrying on the affairs of the Harves- ter Company in Kentucky, does 1t show a doing of business within that state to the extent which will author ize the service of process upon It's agents thus engaged?
 Upon this question the case is a close one, but upon the whole we agree with the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals, that the liar vester Company was engaged in car rying on business in Kentucky. We place no stress upon the fact that the Harvester Company had previously been engaged in doing business in Kentucky and had withdrawn from that state for reasons of its own. It's motives cannot tfrect the legal ques- tions here involved. In order to hold it responsible under the process of the state court 1t must appear that 1t was carrying on business within the
 
 state at the time of the attempted ser vice. As we have said, we think 1t was. Here was a continuous course of business in the solicitation of or ders which were sent to another state and in which response to which the machines of the Harvester Company were delivered within the state of Kentucky. This was course of business, not single transaction. The agents not only solicited such orders in Kentucky, but might there receive payments in money, checks or drafts. They might take notes of customers, which notes were made payable and doubtless were collect ed at any bank in Kentucky. This course of conduct of authorized agents within the state in our judgment con stituted a doing of business there in such wise that the Harvester com pany might be fairly said to have been there, doing business and amen able to the process of the courts ol that state"
 The facts in the case at bar arc practically identical with that in the case just quoted. The plaintiff, Var Schuyver & Company, had travelling statesmen selling goods in Alaska Many sales were made to defendant The salesmen made collections fir some instances, and the company, as in the Harvester case, claimed that a contract of sale was not consum mated until it's approval in Portland | Oregon.
 It is true that this case arose ovel a question of the amenability of tn, Harvester Company to process served | upon 1t or its agents in the State O Kentucky. but op the question oi whether or not it was doing bust ness" within the State of Kentucky the case seems to me controlling. I may be said that the Harvester Com pany was doing business within tn, State of Kentucky in the sense onl, that 1t was rendered amenable tt service of process out of the courts O Kentucky. but it was not doing bust ness" within the meaning of the cor poration laws requiring foreign cor porations to file its articles of incor poration, reports. appointment o l agent, etc, before it was authorize, I to do business, or to bring suit upoI it's contracts in said state. But 1t was doing business" for one pun pose, 1t was doing business for al purposes that are lawful, and within the meaning of all laws that were va i'd and constitutional.
 The only reason why laws simila to those in Chapter B of the Ciyj