In the 1892 case of Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Company, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with issues related to jurisdiction and service of process in international law. The plaintiff, a German citizen, sued the defendant company (also based in Germany) for breach of contract over an alleged failure to safely transport goods across the Atlantic Ocean. The defendant argued that as a foreign corporation it could not be served or sued within New York state where it had no office or designated agent for receiving legal papers. The court ruled against this argument stating that if a foreign corporation is doing business within a state on such scale that warrants its presence there, then it can indeed be considered present within said state's jurisdiction and thus subject to being served legal documents there even without having an official office or representative stationed therein. This ruling established important precedent regarding how corporations are treated under international law when they conduct substantial business operations outside their home country.

In the dissenting opinion for Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Company, Justice Brewer argued that the defendant company had a significant presence in New York and therefore should be subject to its jurisdiction. He disagreed with the majority's view that merely having an agent in a state does not constitute "doing business" there. In his perspective, if a foreign corporation has an office and agents who are conducting affairs on its behalf within a state, it is indeed doing business there and should be held accountable under that state's laws. This includes being sued in local courts for any wrongs committed anywhere by such corporations as long as they have sufficient contacts with the forum state.