Alexander Film Co. v. State, Use Phillips County

Decision Date24 February 1941
Docket Number4-6217
Citation147 S.W.2d 1011,201 Ark. 1052
PartiesALEXANDER FILM COMPANY v. STATE, USE PHILLIPS COUNTY
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; E. M. Pipkin, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and dismissed.

Brickhouse & Brickhouse, for appellant.

John L Anderson and Douglas S. Heslep, for appellee.

OPINION

HUMPHREYS, J.

Separate suits were brought in the name of the state of Arkansas for the benefit of Phillips county in the circuit court of said county against appellants to recover from each a penalty of $ 3,000 for failing to qualify as foreign corporations under §§ 2247 to 2251, inclusive, of Pope's Digest before transacting business in the state of Arkansas.

For the purposes of trial the cases were consolidated in the circuit court and heard upon an agreed statement of facts resulting in a judgment of $ 1,000 against each appellant, from which is this appeal.

The agreed statement of facts on which the case was heard is as follows: "It is agreed that the Alexander Film Company and Motion Picture Advertising Company are corporations, not connected in any way with producers of motion pictures for amusement; that their business is to make and sell screen advertising to merchants or other businesses or companies that all contracts of Alexander Film Company are approved and accepted at Colorado Springs, Colorado; that all contracts of Motion Picture Advertising Service Company, Inc., are approved and accepted at New Orleans, Louisiana. That both of these advertising companies contract with motion picture theatres to run their advertising; that their pictures are on the screens in connection with their regular picture shows; that all their contracts are accepted and approved at Colorado Springs, Colorado, and New Orleans, Louisiana.

"That judgment in the sum of one thousand dollars was rendered against Alexander Film Company in Independence county on October 17, 1938, and said judgment satisfied in full February 24, 1939; that Alexander Film Company obtained its certificate of authority as a foreign corporation from the Secretary of State on March 2, 1939.

"That judgment in the sum of one thousand dollars was rendered against the Motion Picture Advertising Company, Inc., in White county on the 15th day of January, 1940, satisfied in full the 23rd day of April, 1940; that the Motion Picture Advertising Service Company, Inc., obtained its certificate of authority as a foreign corporation from the Secretary of State on March 7, 1940; that by agreement of the prosecuting attorney of White county said judgment was paid in installments.

"That both advertising companies have advertised in twenty counties in the state of Arkansas before obtaining certificates of authority when advised by counsel that they were engaged in interstate commerce; that no new contracts were made by either of the defendants after judgment was rendered and before obtaining their certificates of authority as foreign corporations to do business in Arkansas; that prior to January 15, 1940, the Motion Picture Advertising Service Company, Inc., engaged in the business of furnishing screen advertising material and had same screened for various merchants in Phillips county, Arkansas; that pursuant to a contract entered into between the defendant, Motion Picture Advertising Service, Inc., and Paramount Theatre of Helena, Arkansas, said theatre showed on its screen films furnished by the defendant; that at that time the defendant had not complied with the laws of the state of Arkansas as stated in the original complaint filed in this cause; that prior to October 17, 1938, the defendant, Alexander Film Company, engaged in the business of furnishing screen advertising material and had same screened for various merchants in Phillips county, Arkansas; that pursuant to a contract entered into between the defendant, Alexander Film Company, and the Plaza Theatre of Helena, Arkansas, said theatre showed on. its screen, film furnished by the defendant; that at that time defendant, Alexander Film Company, had not complied with the laws of the state of Arkansas, as stated in the original complaint filed in this cause."

By reference to the agreed statement of facts it will be seen that a penalty of $ 1,000 was assessed against one of the appellants in a suit brought in Independence county, and a penalty of $ 1,000, was assessed against the other appellant in a suit brought in White county, and that after each paid the judgment against it each qualified and obtained a certificate to do business in Arkansas under §§ 2247, 2248, 2249, 2250, and 2251 of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • North American Phillips Commercial Electronics Corp. v. Gaytri Corp.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1987
    ...§ 64-1202 is a penal statute and must be strictly construed in favor of those against whom the penalty is sought. Alexander Film Co. v. State, 201 Ark. 1052, 147 S.W.2d 1011; Murray Tool Co. v. State, 203 Ark. 874, 159 S.W.2d 71. In thus strictly construing the statute in favor of the appel......
  • United Press Intern., Inc. v. Hernreich
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • September 19, 1966
    ...§ 64--1202 is a penal statute and must be strictly construed in favor of those against whom the penalty is sought. Alexander Film Co. v. State, 201 Ark. 1052, 147 S.W.2d 1011; Murray Tool Co. v. State, 203 Ark. 874, 159 S.W.2d 71. In thus strictly construing the statute in favor of the appe......
  • Magness v. Sellers
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1941
  • Standard Abstract & Title Co., Inc. v. Rector-Phillips-Morse, Inc., RECTOR-PHILLIPS-MORS
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1984
    ...on foreign corporations which do business in Arkansas without a certificate of authority. In Alexander Film Co. v. State ex rel. Phillips County, 201 Ark. 1052, 147 S.W.2d 1011 (1941), we discussed § 64-1202 and stated that since it is a penal statute, it must be strictly construed in favor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT