Barron v. Burnside
Decision Date | 11 April 1887 |
Citation | 7 S.Ct. 931,121 U.S. 186,30 L.Ed. 915 |
Parties | BARRON v. BURNSIDE, Sheriff, etc. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[
This is a writ of error brought by Henry S. Barron to review a judgment of the supreme court of the state of Iowa, on a trial on a writ of habeas corpus, remanding him to the custody of George W. Burnside, sheriff of Linn county, Iowa, by whom he was held under a warrant for his arrest issued by a justice of the peace of Linn county, October 5, 1886, for 'the crime of knowingly transacting a bortion of the business of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company within the state of Iowa, when such railway company had no valid permit to do business in the state of Iowa, as provided by chapter 76 of the Laws of the Twenty-first General Assembly of the State of Iowa, approved April 6, 1886, and taking effect September 1, 1886.'
The statute in question is entitled 'An act requiring foreign corporations to file their articles of incorporation with the secretary of state, and imposing certain conditions upon such corporations transacting business in this state.' The provisions of the act are as follows:
The information on which the warrant of arrest was issued was as follows:
'State of Iowa, Linn County—as.:
'Before C. W. BURTON, Justice of the Peace in and for Rapids Township.
'THE STATE OF IOWA vs. HENRY BARRON.
'The defendant is accused of the crime of knowingly transacting a portion of the business of the Chicago & North- western Railway Company within the state of Iowa, when such railway company has no valid permit to do business in the state of Iowa, as provided in chapter 76 of the Laws of the 21st General Assembly of said state of Iowa, and taking effect September 1, 1886; for that the said defendant, on the fifth day of October, 1886, at the city of Cedar Rapids, in the county and state aforesaid, well knowing the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company to be a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, ad not a corporation organized under the laws of Iowa, and well knowing that the said Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company was such foreign corporation for pecuniary profit other than for carrying on mercantile or manufacturing business, to-wit, for the operating of a line of railroad, and well knowing that said railway company has failed, neglected, and refused to file its articles of incorporation with the secretary of state of the state of Iowa, and has neglected and refused to request the issuance to such Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company of a permit to transact business in said state of Iowa, and well knowing that said railway company has no permit to do business in said state of Iowa, as required by said chapter 76 of the Laws of Iowa passed by the 21st General Assembly aforesaid, did knowingly act as a locomotive engineer for the transaction of the business of said Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company within the state of Iowa, by running a locomotive engine, with a passenger train attached thereto, through the township of Rapids, in the county and state aforesaid, contrary to law, and the statute in such case made and provided.
J. H. PRESTON.
[Notarial Seal.]
'Notary Public in and for Linn County, Iowa.'
Barron, having been arrested, applied to the supreme court of the state for a writ of habeas corpus, by a petition setting forth various facts as showing that his imprisonment was illegal, and praying that his petition might be tried before the supreme court. The writ was issued, a return was made to it by the sheriff, and the case was heard upon an agreed statement of facts; the only material ones, in the view we take of the case, being that the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company was and is an Illinois corporation, operating railroads in Iowa, and claiming to do so under the authority of statutes of that state, and that Barron, 'at the time he was arrested, was in the employment of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, and engaged as an engineer on a locomotive in running a passenger train, which was made up at Chicago, in the state of Illinois, and was destined to Council Bluffs, in Iowa, and that said train was carrying passengers and the United States mails received at different points in the state of Illinois, and destined to points in the state of Iowa and beyond, and also from points in the state of Iowa to other points in the same state,' and that he was arrested while he was engaged in controlling the engine on the train while it was running. It was admitted that the company had not complied with the Iowa statute by taking out the required permit. On the hearing before the state court, it was urged, among other things, that the statute of Iowa is void as an attempt to interfere with the jurisdiction of the federal courts, as established by the constitution of the United States and acts of congress. The court upheld the validity of the statute.
W. C. Goudy and I. J. Herrick, for plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Butler Bros. Shoe Co. v. United States Rubber Co.
... ... of the United States and the laws in pursuance thereof, and ... was illegal and void ... The ... question arose again in Barron v. Burnside, 121 U.S ... 186, 200, 7 Sup.Ct. 931, 936, 30 L.Ed. 915, and the former ... decision was affirmed. The court said: ... 'As ... ...
-
Western Union Telegraph Company v. State of Kansas On the Relation of Coleman
...action of the corporation in obedience to its provisions,'—citing Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445, 22 L. ed. 365; Barron v. Burnside, 121 U. S. 186, 30 L. ed. 915, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 295, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 931; Texas Land & Mortg. Co. v. Worsham, 76 Tex. 556, 13 S. W. 384. See also to t......
-
Markham v. City of Newport News
...79 S.Ct. 1060, 3 L.Ed.2d 1163. 12 Insurance Company v. Morse, 1874, 20 Wall. 445, 87 U.S. 445, 22 L.Ed. 365. 13 Barron v. Burnside, 1886, 121 U.S. 186, 7 S.Ct. 931, 30 L.Ed. 915. 14 Doyle v. Continental Insurance Company, 1876, 4 Otto 535, 94 U.S. 535, 24 L. Ed. 148; Cable v. United States ......
-
Hunter v. Colfax Consol. Coal Co.
...by law, have been universally condemned. See Wood v. Humphrey, 114 Mass. 185;Pearl v. Harris, 121 Mass. 390; Barron's Case, 121 U.S. 186, 7 Sup. Ct. 931, 935, 30 L. Ed. 915. Appellant contends that the act violates this rule. If we assume the statute would be void if it operated to oust the......
-
IMPOSING SILENCE THROUGH SETTLEMENT: A FIRST-AMENDMENT CASE STUDY OF THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL.
...15 F.4th 166, 172 (2d Cir. 2021). (31) See Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 796 (1988). (32) See Barron v. Burnside, 121 U.S. 186, 200 (1887) ("As the Iowa Statute makes the right to a permit dependent upon the surrender by the foreign corporation of a privilege secured to i......