3. WUCHTER v. PIZZUTTI, 276 U.S. 13, 48 S.Ct. 259, 72 L.Ed. 446 (1928), concerned the constitutionality of a nonresident-motorist statute similar to the one involved in Hess v.

Pawloski, p. 87, supra. The statute authorized in-state service on the Secretary of State and did not expressly require that notice of the action be given to the nonresident. The Court found this omission to violate due process, notwithstanding the fact that actual notice had been given. The Court explained, Every statute of this kind * * * should require the plaintiff bringing the suit to show in the summons to be served the post office address or residence of the defendant being sued, and should impose either on the plaintiff himself or upon the official receiving service or some other, the duty of communication by mail or otherwise with the defendant.

Id. at 20, 48 S.Ct. at 261, 72 L.Ed. at 450. Is the fact of actual notice irrelevant to the constitutional inquiry?