Coppedge v. The M. K. Goetz Brewing Company

• Decision Date: 10 October 1903
• Docket Number: 13,277
• Parties: A. P. COPPEDGE et al. v. THE M. K. GOETZ BREWING COMPANY
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

73 P. 908

67 Kan. 851

A. P. COPPEDGE et al. v. THE M. K. GOETZ BREWING COMPANY

No. 13,277

Supreme Court of Kansas

October 10, 1903

Decided July, 1903.

Error from Decatur district court; JOHN R. HAMILTON, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

L. H Thompson, T. W. Simmons, and Wilson & Langmade, for plaintiffs in error.

Tully Scott, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Per Curiam:

After the issues were made up in this case, it was tried on an agreed statement, from which it appears that the plaintiff, a non-resident corporation, was the owner of certain bars, mirrors, etc., paraphernalia ordinarily and generally used in maintaining a public nuisance under the prohibition law; that the property, at the time of its destruction, was of the value of $ 350; that it was leased to one C. T. Conner, to be used by him in the town of Norcatur Decatur county, in maintaining a place where intoxicating liquors were sold contrary to law. As a consideration for the use of the property, Conner agreed to sell no other beer than that furnished by plaintiff. At the time the property was destroyed it was being used by Conner in keeping and maintaining a place where intoxicating liquors were sold bartered and given away contrary to law, with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. The defendants, as citizens, and without other authority, entered the place so kept by Conner and destroyed all of such property. This action was brought to recover the value thereof. The plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendants. prosecute error to this court.

Defendants make no attempt to justify their acts. They contend that, admitting their wrongs, plaintiff cannot recover, because it is a non-resident corporation and had not, prior to bringing the action, complied with section 1260 of the General Statutes of 1901, which provides that every foreign corporation shall, before doing business in Kansas, procure a license therefor. There is nothing in the agreed statement upon this question. Under the authority of Northrup v. Wills, 65 Kan. 769, 70 P. 879, the burden of showing that a non-resident corporation which brings an action in Kansas has not complied with the laws of Kansas and has not obtained a certificate to do business therein is upon the defendant.

It is also contended that plaintiff could not recover against defendants without showing its own unlawful connection with Conner in violating the prohibitory law of Kansas, and...