American Extension School of Law v. Ragland
| Decision Date | 10 January 1938 |
| Citation | 112 S.W.2d 110,232 Mo.App. 763 |
| Parties | AMERICAN EXTENSION SCHOOL OF LAW, APPELLANT, v. W. MAX RAGLAND, RESPONDENT |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County.--Hon. Nike G. Sevier Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
S.W James, Jr., for appellant.
Tom B Hembree for respondent.
This suit was instituted by the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, against the defendant before a justice of the peace in Cole county, Missouri, to recover a judgment for a balance of $ 78, alleged to be due on a promissory note executed to it by the defendant.
The note sued upon was filed with the justice; and, with it, the plaintiff also filed a written contract entered into between it and the defendant, alleged to recite the consideration to the defendant upon which said note was executed.
The defendant appeared before the justice and filed what is denominated in the record a plea of abatement, in which he alleges that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the action because, at the time of the institution of such action, the plaintiff was not licensed to do business in the State of Missouri and is not now licensed so to do and does not have the power to sue or be sued in the State of Missouri.
The justice overruled such plea or motion; and the defendant thereupon filed an answer and counterclaim, in which answer and counterclaim he denies any liability to the plaintiff because the plaintiff is not a corporation licensed by the laws of Missouri to do business in this State. He further sets up a failure of consideration, by reason of the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the terms of the contract entered into by it with him, in consideration of which contract the note was given, to which answer and counterclain the plaintiff filed the following reply:
The reply in substance further alleges a willingness on the part of the plaintiff to comply with such contract but alleges that the defendant breached the contract and failed to perform its terms upon his part and thereby made it impossible for performance on the plaintiff's part. It further makes general denial of the allegations contained in said answer and counterclaim.
The record does not set out the judgment rendered by the justice, but does set out that an appeal was taken from the judgment of the justice to the Circuit Court of Cole County, in which latter court it appears that the defendant's plea in abatement or motion to dismiss was taken up on May 28, 1936, and sustained on the ground that the plaintiff corporation was not licensed to do and transact business within the State of Missouri and the appeal was dismissed, and that, after an unsuccessful motion for rehearing by the plaintiff, an appeal was taken by it to this court. It appears from the bill of exceptions filed that no evidence was offered or introduced on the trial of the cause.
The plaintiff's motion for rehearing is based upon alleged error on the part of the trial court in sustaining the plea in abatement for the reason that the plaintiff, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located at the city of Chicago in the State of Illinois, is not required to comply with the provisions of Sections 4596-4598, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1929, requiring the registration and licensing of foreign corporations doing business within the State of Missouri in order to maintain suits and sue in the courts of this State if said plaintiff corporation is not doing business within the State of Missouri within the purview of said sections; that the business of said plaintiff corporation is purely interstate in character and governed by the Constitution of the United States, article 1, chapter 8, clause 3, and the laws of the United States relative thereto exclusively; and that to subject said plaintiff corporation to the requirements of said Sections 4596-4598, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1929, would constitute illegal restraint on interstate commerce, contrary to the federal constitution and laws.
The plaintiff assigns error as follows: That the court erred in sustaining the plea in abatement for the reason that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boggess v. Cunningham's Estate
...tried. As well said by Judge Reynolds for this court in American Extension School of Law v. Ragland, 232 Mo.App. 763, loc.cit. 767, 112 S.W.2d 110, loc.cit. 113: 'That there must be evidence upon which base a judgment or decree in any case, in the absence of admissions of sufficient facts i......