274 U.S. 352 (1927)
Pawloski brought an action against Hess to recover damages for personal injuries. The declaration alleged that Hess negligently and wantonly drove a motor vehicle on a public highway in Massachusetts and that the vehicle struck and injured Pawloski. Hess is a resident of Pennsylvania. No personal service was made on him and no property belonging to him was attached. Service of process was instead made in compliance with chapter 90 of the General Laws of Massachusetts, as amended by Statute 1923, chapter 431, section 2.1
The statute provided that a non-resident's operation of a motor vehicle on a public way in the commonwealth would be deemed equivalent to an appointment of the registrar as his attorney for service of process. This applied to actions growing out of any accident or collision. Service was to be made by leaving a copy of the process with a fee of two dollars in the hands of the registrar. Notice and a copy of the process were sent by registered mail to the defendant. The defendant's return receipt and the plaintiff's affidavit of compliance were appended to the writ.2
Hess appeared specially for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction. He filed an answer in abatement and moved to dismiss on the ground that the service of process would deprive him of his property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court overruled the answer in abatement and denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order in Pawloski v. Hess, 250 Mass. 22.3
At the trial the contention was renewed and again denied. The jury returned a verdict for Pawloski. The exceptions were overruled by the Supreme Judicial Court in Pawloski v. Hess, 253 Mass. 478. The Superior Court then entered judgment, and the writ of error was allowed by the chief justice of that court.4
Whether the Massachusetts statute authorizing service of process on a non-resident motorist by delivery to the registrar and registered mail notice contravenes the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?5
The power of a State to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by non-residents as well as by residents.6 In advance of the operation of a motor vehicle on its highway by a non-resident, the State may require him to appoint one of its officials as his agent. Process may be served on him in proceedings growing out of such use.7 The difference between the formal and implied appointment is not substantial so far as concerns the application of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.8
No. The statute operates to require a non-resident to answer for his conduct in the State where arise causes of action alleged against him.9 Under the statute the implied consent is limited to proceedings growing out of accidents or collisions on a highway in which the non-resident may be involved. This applies directly to the facts of Hess operating a motor vehicle in Massachusetts that struck and injured Pawloski.10 It is required that he shall actually receive and receipt for notice of the service and a copy of the process.
The statute contemplates such continuances as may be found necessary to give reasonable time and opportunity for defense.11 It makes no hostile discrimination against non-residents but tends to put them on the same footing as residents.12
The Massachusetts statute does not contravene the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.13