[712] Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U.S. 406 (1903).
[713] Riverside Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189, 195 (1915).
[714] Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Spratley, 172 U.S. 602 (1899).
[715] St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U.S. 350, 356 (1882). See St. Louis S.W.R. Co. v. Alexander, 227 U.S. 218 (1913).
[716] Mutual Reserve &c. Assn. v. Phelps, 190 U.S. 147, 156 (1903).
[717] Washington v. Superior Court, 289 U.S. 361, 365 (1933).
[718] 326 U.S. 310, 317-320 (1945).
[719] This departure was recognized by Justice Rutledge in a subsequent opinion in Nippert v. Richmond, 327 U.S. 416, 422 (1946).
The principle that solicitation of business alone is inadequate to confer jurisdiction for purposes of subjecting a foreign corporation to a suit in personam was established in Green v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co., 205 U.S. 530 (1907); but was somewhat qualified by the later holding in International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579 (1914) to the effect that when solicitation was connected with other activities (in the latter case, the local agents collected from the customers), a foreign corporation was then doing business within the forum State. Inasmuch as the International Shoe Company, in addition to having its agents solicit orders, also permitted them to rent quarters for the display of merchandise, the observation has been made that the Court, by applying the qualification of the International Harvester Case, could have decided International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) as it did without abandoning the "presence" doctrine.
[720] 326 U.S. 310, 316-317.